[inquest]

Because we have numerous examples of people writing on stone throughout history.

That's a bit circular logic. We've found plenty of artifacts that have contained writing unknown to us, but nonetheless concluded that it was in fact writing, based on the immediately discernible fact that no forces of nature would have produced them.

Because erosion wouldn't leave such detailed marks.

In other words, because we ruled out natural causes. That's what ID sets out to do, by saying that there are organisms and features of organisms that could not have arisen through any natural cause that can be identified. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but it's not "unscientific" to pursue that line of inquiry.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's a bit circular logic. We've found plenty of artifacts that have contained writing unknown to us, but nonetheless concluded that it was in fact writing, based on the immediately discernible fact that no forces of nature would have produced them."

Occam's razor would apply. We have evidence that humans have left writing; we have a good idea what writing looks like. We have no evidence at all of a natural cause making something even remotely like the Rosetta stone writings. The most reasonable course is to assume that people made it. Then we test that hypothesis; lo and behold, the writings were decoded and we could feel confident that we were right.

In the case of evolution, we know of NO evidence that a designer had any part in it. We do have a lot of physical evidence pointing to a natural explanation. There is no way however to test for *intelligent design* in biological systems and distinguish it from a natural process.

"In other words, because we ruled out natural causes."

Actually, we have not. (in the Rosetta stone example). Human writing is a natural product of a physical being. There is physical evidence. There is no such evidence of *intelligent design* in the evolution of life. Or in life's origins. Or in the origin's of the universe. (All separate issues).

"That's what ID sets out to do, by saying that there are organisms and features of organisms that could not have arisen through any natural cause that can be identified."

It's just an argument from ignorance. As we learn more, the scope of the *designer* will continue to shrink. Those who based their religion in large part on ID will find themselves slipping to atheism/agnosticism or will have to turn a blind eye to the evidence. ID is not just bad science, it is bad religion.

" Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but it's not "unscientific" to pursue that line of inquiry."

It's unscientific when you can't formulate your hypothesis in such a way that it could ever be falsified.