[Liberty1970]

"It is the scientifically knowledgeable person who knows with confidence what nature can and cannot do."

You've a pretty bizarre view of science there son.

Is it bizarre to conclude, for example, that if water boils at 100 degrees C at 1 atmosphere pressure, then it will not boil at 105 C or 95 C under the same conditions? I don't think I am the one with a bizarre view if you deny the fact that science tells us not only what nature does, but what it does not do.

I find it peculiar that you would first ask me to provide a detailed accounting for how we know blue jeans are designed artifacts, and then admit to me that you believe the same yourself. You seem to be saying that you believe they are designed without being able to provide criteria. Indeed your reaction above about my 'bizarre' views indicates a hostility to the whole idea of using criterion besides direct observation to identify design.

So it is you, not I, who should be justifying just how you claim to believe blue jeans are designed artifacts.

To take it a step further, how would you identify the activity of an unknown genetic engineer (a bio-terrorist for example), who actively altered DNA to create a new plague? Consistent methodological naturalists of the sort you represent cannot allow people to even speculate that such a thing can happen, even if a million people were dying of it in the streets and a portion of the altered DNA was coded "COURTESY OF AL-QUAIDA" in morse code. This philosophy has boxed you into an absurd straitjacket of naturalism.

[oldmanreedy]

"So it is you, not I, who should be justifying just how you claim to believe blue jeans are designed artifacts."

Uhhhh, I asked you first chief, and you have magnificently failed to answer. It's just common courtesy not to answer a question with another question. But I'm a generous fellow, so I'll excuse your ignorance of etiquette and give you some of the reasons I am persuaded that bluejeans are made by humans:

1. I knew some dudes that worked in a bluejean factory
2. I've seen video of people making bluejeans
3. I took a home ec class where we made pants similar to bluejeans
4. In the same home ec class we sewed stitches that look exactly like the stitches found on bluejeans.
5. My bluejeans have a tag on them that says in English "Made in Thailand" and I've only ever seen evidence that humans and computers programmed by humans use English
6. There was a news report about exploitation of child laborers in bluejeans factories, and they mentioned how many jeans each kid made per day.
7. Once my jeans ripped and I took them to a tailor who repaired them, and he told me he made new ones as well.
8. Bluejeans are sold in stores and catalogs that exclusively sell other manmade artifacts.
9. Advertising material sometimes brags about the person who made the bluejeans.
10. There are sewing books that tell you how to make bluejeans.
11. etc.
12. etc.

There you go, including plenty of indirect evidence to put the lie to your lunatic strawman that I only allow 'direct observation'.

YOUR TURN: Lets see that process of 'scientific induction' that persuades you blue jeans are man-made. Since this is the third time I've asked you this question, if you don't answer the boogeyman is gonna getcha.

PS:
Your assertion that 'consistent methodological naturalists' cannot identify a genetically engineered organism is laughably insane, and contradicted by the plain facts. Are Monsanto not being 'consistent methodological naturalists' when they sue somebody for stealing their organisms? Please explain the exact reasoning that would forbid me from concluding Al Qaeda made a disease if they in fact wrote "Made by Al Qaeda" in the genetic code.