What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

But how do you count aggregate negative evidence?Global flood? Young earth? Talking snakes?Or do you just ignore that negative evidence?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

How about addressing the point I raised instead of going off on a Gish gallop on totally unrelated topics?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

We deal with "design" all the time in archaeology, particularly with things like stone and bone tools.And there is no way to tell with some items whether they are natural or modified. Creeks and talus slopes can bash or grind items together, sometimes making a natural item appear deliberately modified.And in fact, some natural items can become artifacts by their use. Good examples are door stops and paper weights. They serve a function, and can be classified as artifacts, but their use doesn't necessarily leave any evidence.There have been thousands of studies in a variety of fields devoted to determining whether particular items are artifacts, and what their uses were. And there are still items where we just can't tell.Creationists, on the other hand, are more in the "no study required, I know it when I see it" camp.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Give it a try: Modern art (designed) or natural?And how can you tell?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It goes far beyond that. We have evidence that biological systems can come up with "designs" on their own. As the video I have linked to here details, it's remarkably easy! That's what they mean by "robust" -- there are a lot of pathways to a workable result. Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture): Page not found | UW Video

Abstract Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Correct, a magnified salt crystal.How does one tell that from modern fine art?Designed vs. natural is the question. IDers are still left with "I know it when I see it" and nothing more.That's not science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I disagree.In the absence of evidence for the supernatural, the natural is the default position.After all, we can see and measure and observe the natural.The supernatural we can't see or measure or observe. It would seem that to posit a supernatural origin for life one would have first to demonstrate that the supernatural even exists.