In post 144, I wrote that “If he’s [the intelligent designer] the Christian God, then according to the Bible, he’s infallible. He shouldn’t make any mistakes. Whales shouldn’t have leg bones. Fruit flies shouldn’t have miniature wings that serve no purpose.”
You responded with “The problem is, we don't know what that intent was, or is, so we have no standard with which to contradict. That's first and foremost.”
Your answer violates one of the principles of scientific inquiry – natural explanations to natural phenomena. As I wrote, “By bringing the "designer's intent" into play, you are invoking the supernatural, which has no role in science.”
It’s not science’s business to determine what the “designer’s intent” was. It is, however, very much science’s business to figure out what things are used for. The leg bones of whales thus far have not been shown to have any function. Likewise, the miniature wings of fruit flies that are too weak to aid in flight also have not been shown to have any function.
That is what science does. It seeks natural explanations. The “designer’s intent” cannot be part of any natural explanation.
We share the same frustrations. It's just that you seem to believe in intelligent design, and I don't.
I believe in God, and if you don’t understand that you were making a philosophical argument, which apparently you don’t, then I’m just wasting my time as per usual...