[r9etb]

Empty lack of response noted

Not empty at all. You're trying to force inscrutability on the putative designer, and there is no reason for you to do so.

At least let's try to be clear about the logical requirements of the discussion, OK?

As I say, if you want to start limiting the designer as to motivation and/or powers, you'd better start saying what those limits are. Behe et al carefully avoid making any such statement, on the contrary.

Please cite where Behe, et al., state that the designer "must be inscrutable."

The inscrutability of the designer isn't my claim, it is IDs claim.

No, it is your claim. You're imposing a requirement ("the designer must be inscrutable in methods and motivation") for which there is no logical basis.

[Thatcherite]

Empty lack of response noted Not empty at all. You're trying to force inscrutability on the putative designer, and there is no reason for you to do so. At least let's try to be clear about the logical requirements of the discussion, OK?

False. I'm not trying to force inscrutability. ID theory places no limits on the designer. "scrutability" is a limit. If you want the designer to be fathomable then you need to start saying what the designers motives are. If we don't know the designer's motives then of necessity the designer is inscrutable.

Please cite where Behe, et al., state that the designer "must be inscrutable."

Behe et al place no limits on the designer. They say nothing about the designer at all. The designer is a cipher, a blank, and therefore inscrutable. I can understand why you are desparate for this to be not so.