Replies

"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.

We have evidence that humans have left writing; we have a good idea what writing looks like.

Cuneiform writing from ancient Middle Eastern civilizations is unlike anything that's come since. But we can look at some random artifact with it stamped on there and immediately recognize that it was not formed by natural processes.

It's just an argument from ignorance.

Same with finding a tablet with cuneiform writing. We know of no natural process that would cause what we find. It's just that at some point our knowledge is of such a nature that our "ignorance" counts as evidence.

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

The way to falsify the hypothesis that the cuneiform tablet is intelligently designed would be to come up with a plausible explanation for a natural process that would account for it. Same goes for living beings. If their diversity and features can be plausibly accounted for, in accurate detail, through natural processes, then Occam's razor would take over from there, and ID would be falsified.