[ThomasNast]

As soon as you take such evidence that DOES point to a composer and claim that must be the answer, then you are violating the premise from the onset that no composer be used to explain the origin of the piece.

Then you will be subjected to a lot of alternate arguments and how unscientific you are being.

[muir_redwoods]

"As soon as you take such evidence that DOES point to a composer and claim that must be the answer, then you are violating the premise from the onset that no composer be used to explain the origin of the piece. Then you will be subjected to a lot of alternate arguments and how unscientific you are being."

I've deduced that there is no point in discussing this with you as we have no common ground for discussion.

[Dimensio]

As soon as you take such evidence that DOES point to a composer and claim that must be the answer, then you are violating the premise from the onset that no composer be used to explain the origin of the piece.

At this point your analogy falls apart, as science has no such assumption when invesitgating the origins of either life or the cosmos.

[Ichneumon]

As soon as you take such evidence that DOES point to a composer and claim that must be the answer, then you are violating the premise from the onset that no composer be used to explain the origin of the piece.

There is no such premise in science, or evolutionary biology, and thus your attempted analogy falls flat on its uninformed face.

Please stop misrepresenting the nature of the "ID controversy". At the very least, read all of the Kitzmiller decision for a good primer on the topic, to bring you up to speed on the background.

Hint: Methodological naturalism is not the same as philosophical naturalism.