I've brought up this line of problems for ID wayyyyy in the past, and it went unanswered. My guess is you're not going to see it answered this time around either. IDman has already blown it by answering someone else (not the OP) with a dodge.
But I felt I should correct part of your argument...
Indeed, there does seem to be two classes of design in the world.
1. Design that benefits humans, and is known to be made by humans.
2. Design that benefits the organism displaying the design, and is known to NOT be made by humans.
This design-for-other vs. design-for-self seems to be a crucial difference, and this undercuts the strength of many ID arguments.
#1 is too specific. There is design that benefits nonhumans, and is known to be made by nonhumans. Indeed some of these even benefit humans.
Examples of these are beaver dams, ant colonies, bee hives, spider webs, etc etc.
#2 becomes almost circular in its reasoning when applied to this specific debate. While it is true that when we look at biological organisms we see self-benefits (made neither by humans nor nonhumans), the ID theorist does a have a counter to this which COULD be valid.
The remainder of this reply will concentrate on that second point.
As human technology becomes more advanced it moves toward the creation of NEW and selfsufficient entities both mechanical and organic. Let me start with mechanical because it will be easier and more straightforward.
Right now computer systems have plenty of programs that do not help humans, but rather simply help the computer system. We rely on the computer and so want them to keep running smoothly, which makes these selfbenefit programs useful.
As we merge computers (and approach AI) with robotics, it will be natural to see more of such systems. Eventually we could install reproductive and training routines (parentage) so that the robot organisms would be actively creating the next line of robots for us, perhaps including how to make improvements with each line (both in hardware and software).
If we were wiped out these systems could continue and how would an alien race see them as any different than other biological entities we see today (given no fossil record for them to make statements about the past)? All of their features would be selfbeneficial only.
From this we can also reason that with sufficient knowledge about chemistry, bio or organic robotic organisms might not only be possible but MORE useful.
For example if we wanted to terraform a planet, or colonize known (class M?) planets that are too far for convenient living human travel, we could conceivably send bacteria and/or viruses frontloaded with chemical "scripts" to build life there. It wouldn't be exacting, owing to environmental influences, but some sort of life would "build itself".
This is likely the type of argument you'll see coming from any ID theorist trying to tackle your problem. And in a way it does seem sound.
Isn't it POSSIBLE the earth was seeded with life in this fashion? And that organisms are essentially very advanced selfreplicating selteaching robotic systems?
Here's where I think your line of argument will have to be extended... so what does that possibility mean for here and now? What implications does that have for life and evolution in general?
First off we'd have to realize if this is the case then the second category of design collapses into the first. After all, we would have had a purpose for those entities we created even if their life became independent and all teh features served themselves.
The ID theorist would have NO problem with that of course.
Unfortunately it soon becomes a double edged sword. IF THAT WERE TRUE then isn't our purpose EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE? Without direct and observable communication from the "creators" to the contrary, aren't all of our base instincts and ESPECIALLY our instincts what we are supposed to be like?
They keep wishing to say that ID leads away from the dog eat dog ethical ends of materialism, but why would that be so? We cannot be in a position to judge our makeup and so our makeup, our "design", becomes PARAMOUNT, right?
This ends up hitting them on a totally different level, but it stems from the same beginning argument you outlined, and hits them where it really counts. If they lose their moralizing capacity ID will be useless to them.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
