[inquest]

So...apparently, since, as you say, you don't accept the premise that "there is any meaningful distinction between artificial and supernatural" you think the pentagon and dogs came about from supernatural design.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether or not they did, from a scientific perspective, because "supernatural" is a scientifically meaningless term. It's just a strawman you use to argue against ID, as a substitute for a real argument.

[donh]

I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether or not they did, from a scientific perspective, because "supernatural" is a scientifically meaningless term. It's just a strawman you use to argue against ID, as a substitute for a real argument.

I'll take this as in indication that you don't read what I write with your brights on. I have merely pointed out, accurately, that this wouldn't be a particularly active debate were it not for the proponents of supernatural ID. No part of the argument I made to answer the question "Why won't Evolutionary theory die, if ID holds water?" depends in any manner on a resort to supernatural ID.

[donh]

I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether or not they did, from a scientific perspective

There's a substantial difference. Non-supernatural explanations, regardless of the intelligence of the actor being explained, are potentially the job of science. Supernatural explanations are not.