the key here is the phrase "appearance of design".
why is it "appearance of design"? why that word?
Because both Creationists and Darwinists agree that organisms appear designed. Creationists and Darwinists depart in this respect: Creationists know the appearance is actual; Darwinists assert the appearance is illusory.
so when you say "appearance" = (equals), or, is, you have a problem.
so why do you use "appearance of design" equals?
In this case I should have not used =/equals; it was redundant since I also used the word "corresponds."
do you not think that it "is" designed? if so, why use a word that carries the conotations of falseness and uncertainty?
This is a very good point, but I explained why above. To reiterate: I used appearance BECAUSE both camps agree with this term in this context.
If I were talking to Creationists then I would not need or use a qualifier. We bow to straight forward logic: design indicates invisible Designer. What more does God have to do?
As a reminder, I'm not here to debate. I am here to hear your answers.
Go ahead and debate if you feel like it.
Ray