No you don't.
For example, if I hypothesize that "a designer caused this bacterium to produce human insulin," I need not worry about where that designer came from in order to make my hypothesis, nor do I need to worry about where that designer came from in order to attempt to prove my hypothesis.
124r9etb
______________________________________
You should worry about logic..
Would you agree - that to date the only verifiable 'intelligent designers' capable of causing a bacterium to produce human insulin are human?
Sure, you can speculate than another intelligent designer, a God, made the bacterium produce insulin, but as antiRepublicrat pointed out, your hypothesis then runs into the "who designed the designer" question. You cannot verify the existence of that other designer.
Humans are the only designers [with this type of capability] we can verify . [To date]
And how would you suggest that we would ever be able to find a non-human designer -- of anything, not just biological entities -- if you don't first permit the introduction of a design hypothesis?
No one is 'preventing' your supposition, FRiend. We are simply rejecting it's logic based on the the fact that your hypothesis then runs into the "who designed the designer" question.
You cannot verify the existence of that other designer.
I don't think I'm the one who needs to worry about his logic, FRiend....
That's because your logic is flawed.
There are those who argue that even that is not "verifiable" scientifically. Of course, if that's the case, then science has a rather significant blind spot precisely in the location you say it's correct. And if it's not the case, then of course they're wrong, and the design hypothesis is testable in at least one instance. Either way, science has a problem as regards its current position on the design hypothesis. That's the problem this particular example tends to drive out.
Sure, you can speculate than another intelligent designer, a God, made the bacterium produce insulin, but as antiRepublicrat pointed out....
Which merely demonstrates that neither you nor he understands the purpose of the example. It is not to speculate that "another designer" was involved, but rather to ask a straightforward question: can science get the right explanation when we already know the answer? And if not, can we really trust science to provide the correct answer when we don't already know it?
your hypothesis then runs into the "who designed the designer" question. You cannot verify the existence of that other designer.
Nope. You've just transferred yourself over to a different problem, perhaps without realizing you did so.