[cornelis]

I merely point out

Right. You point it out. And this too: inference from consistency into a credible prediction is one kind thinking, the transfer of that kind of knowledge into other fields of knowledge is something else altogether, requiring--as you say--"the useful." I suspect you have an opinion on the first kind, and I trust we won't be abusive on the second.

[general_re]

My only intent is to test the design inference on its own merits. From this, we can reasonably infer the worth of the design inference, and the design inference only. To take the usefulness - or lack thereof - of the design inference to be indicative of the worth of any other hypothesis is not a logically tenable position, with the exception of those hypotheses that rely on the validity or non-validity of the design inference as a premise.

[Condorman]

Dude, what's your beef? The claim is that design can be detected without historical knowledge. This is a test of that claim. Or are you already hedging your bets?

I hesitate to speak for general_re, but I suspect he would be happy to give you a turn when he and Diamond are done. But I count 18 pictures left until anyone else gets to play.

[Nebullis]

[I]nference from consistency into a credible prediction is one kind thinking, the transfer of that kind of knowledge into other fields of knowledge is something else altogether, requiring--as you say--"the useful." I suspect you have an opinion on the first kind, and I trust we won't be abusive on the second.

IDists abuse of reason:

Human design can be inferred. Therefore, everything that looks designed and is not designed by humans is designed by an Intelligent Designer.