This is not the basic position of ID.
I never said it was, so I'm not sure why you are arguing as if I did. In fact, the lines I wrote both before and after the bit you quoted specify that I was criticizing Hannah's experimental design.
I still don't see her as claiming that everything is designed.
Not directly, no. But by suggesting that the solar systems are designed, and that the basic laws of physics are essentially the result of intelligent design theory, she's making a
very strong implication.
I think she is saying that Kepler thought everything was designed, but I don't read it as her, nor ID, claiming that everything was designed.
Then she makes a very poor choice of references, if she believes them to be wrong.
your argument (of pointing out the logical break-down) doesn't hold up against the actual position of ID, just her twisted ID position
Which, of course, is why I specified that I was criticizing Hannah's experimental design at every step of the way.
I'm not even criticizing her "ID position", I'm criticizing her experimental design. Get it?
Yes, if she did mean that everything is designed, then you are correct that we would not be able to find anything that is non-designed to compare it with.
Her experimental design is still fatally flawed even if she believes that there are some non-designed objects, because there is no way to distinguish between non-designed objects and objects of unknown design, and thus no way to establish a control group.
Doesn't matter what she meant - her experimental design is still flawed.
But, that still cannot be used as an argument against ID, in general.
How many times are you going to state this? Find somewhere in the thread where I used Hannah's experimental flaw as an argument against ID in a general sense, otherwise shut up about it already...
Personally, I don't think you were being biased. I do think you misunderstood her position though.
Thanks. But with either reading of her position, her experiment has serious problems at a basic level.
Now, though that is not an argument against ID theory in general, I do think Hannah's sort of experimental thinking is
representative of what the ID folks have put forward thus far in terms of hypotheses/experiments. They usually have glaring flaws - false analogies, circular reasoning, begging the question...
...unless you can point out an ID hypothesis or experiment that is solid?