[jennyp]

"OK, now I'm curious: Please tell me the nature of the Designer. Is this designing entity infinitely intelligent?"

I'm unaware of enough evidence being available to even make that question legitimate.

We just agreed that successive improvements to earlier designs is a sign that an object was designed by an imperfect designer (otherwise they wouldn't have to improve the design in the first place). But you're afraid to use this understanding when looking at the evolution of Man (whether by RM&NS or by successive tinkering by the Intelligent Designer).

Does a design which has so obviously been tinkered with constantly throughout its history shout out "I was designed by a perfect designer!", or "I was designed by an imperfect designer!"?

[Southack]

"But you're afraid to use this understanding when looking at the evolution of Man (whether by RM&NS or by successive tinkering by the Intelligent Designer). Does a design which has so obviously been tinkered with constantly throughout its history shout out "I was designed by a perfect designer!", or "I was designed by an imperfect designer!"?"

The limited evidence at hand would imply, however inconclusively, that the designer(s) per se improved designs over time due to improvements in knowlege (implying something that could improve and did improve but was NOT at full potential earlier on).

But there simply isn't enough evidence at hand to warrant making such a statement conclusively.

We have lower level questions that still remain to be resolved before we can even tackle such questions as you brought up earlier, and getting ahead of ourselves will only serve to use incomplete, inconclusive higher-level assumptions erroneously into factoring our lower-level conclusions.

In other words, "going there" prematurely is detrimental to our scientific understanding and process.

[BMCDA]

We just agreed that successive improvements to earlier designs is a sign that an object was designed by an imperfect designer (otherwise they wouldn't have to improve the design in the first place). But you're afraid to use this understanding when looking at the evolution of Man (whether by RM&NS or by successive tinkering by the Intelligent Designer).

Does a design which has so obviously been tinkered with constantly throughout its history shout out "I was designed by a perfect designer!", or "I was designed by an imperfect designer!"?

Ohh, that's no problem y'know. There is already an answer to your objections:

If a living system looks well designed, it's evidence for ID. If it looks poorly designed, that's just because we have no way of knowing what constitutes good and bad design.
Afterall, we can't tell that it's bad design because we have no way of knowing what the Designer really intends. But we do know that ID will revolutionize culture, society, and law, according to what the Designer intends.