No I am not. The language was yours. If your argument was overstated, look at your own post for the fault. I would suggest writing what you mean in future. Huffiness on your part is not a logical refutation. If you don't understand my point, please say so.
So, where in your procedure do you test that the purported designer intended to produce this human insulin producing bacterium?
There is no logical requirement to provide a motive in order to make the "design" inference. For example, you do not need to know the motives of the designer to recognize that the following was designed:
(FWIW, its the Farlin BF-114-1 Lightning Ear Cleaner.)
Likewise, the presence of a perfectly duplicated and very specific human insulin gene within a bacterial genome is easily explained by intelligent action. We could even write down the specific steps by which it could be done. (And as an added bonus we'd be correct.) If we then go on to find the same human insulin gene in yeast (which you can), then you'd be even more likely to accept the design hypothesis.
A scientist who persists in arguing against design would be required to show that his "naturalistic processes" hypothesis is a better explanation. Good luck with that.
There is no logical requirement to provide a motive in order to make the "design" inference.Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. Where I have used the word intention, you have substituted the word motive even though you are attempting a rebuttal to my post. We are then left with the question, is your apparent sophistry by design or not? Should I rebuke you for typical creationist underhandedness or mildly correct your careless mistake?
Don't bother replying, I know which it is. You have accused me of overstating your argument (even though I used your own words), of huffily not understanding your argument (even though it was very clear) and now misrepresenting my argument. Three strikes and you're out is my policy.
A scientist who persists in arguing against design would be required to show that his "naturalistic processes" hypothesis is a better explanation. Good luck with that. Well, we have an interesting allegoric creation story from science that states a Blind Watchmaker accidentally created a universe that contains a Blind Gamekeeper (who likes to be called ‘natural selection’ ) and killed accidentally so that we may live ; )
Watch out because the Blind Gamekeeper can kill you with his ‘noodly appendage’ if you don’t believe this story… I’m just kidding, he is actually; blind, deaf, and very stupid… but hey, that’s science.