"What is needed is a test that distinguishes design from non-design with reference only to the observable characteristics of the item under test, and no reference to the history of the item or any external data. As my example shows, this is very problematic."
That was an arguement of mine a little while back. Thanks for the reminder!
Until we can tell the difference between the inherently random and the subtly designed, we have no room to approach either as scientific.
Thank you. We are in complete agreement on the matter of whether questions of design or not-design are scientific. However, unless you have only learned the cartoon versions of the theory of evolution that are propounded by creationists, ID'ers and some of the more radical secular humanists, then you should know that the theory of evolution in no way addresses the question of design. Evolution is perfectly consistent both with design and with a lack of design in the living world. Evolution doesn't attempt to deal with design precisely for the reason that we have agreed to, namely that considerations of design are non-scientific, and evolution is a scientific theory.