That's a non sequitur and not resolved. I was commenting to cornelis, who in his posts implied that general_re is making invalid generalizations, that it's the IDists who leap to an invalid inference of universal design from the particular of human design. It is not established that what we know about human design in any way applies to something designed by an Intelligent Designer. The tests for such design is simply gap-gaming.
I do apologize for the intrusion into your remarks to cornelius. You are correct that what we know about human design cannot neccesarily be attributed to any other intelligent agency. Yet, if we observe similar phenomena, what are we to make of it? What demarcation criteria can be proposed distinguishing science for what you apparently regard as non-science?
Cordially,