A thought on Intelligence behind Design

If you're referring to "molecular machines", I don't see how the molecules in the flagellum could be any better "matched" than any other chemical interaction.Honestly I see this as just equivocation on the term "machine". Machines are traditionally referred to as artifacts created by humans to serve some specific utility. Since the flagellum wasn't designed by humans or any other entity we know of (if it was designed at all), how can it be labeled a "machine"?Are machines the only things in your view that can do anything? Again, this just appears to be equivocation on the word "machine".

As an ID critic, I guess I would have to ask: How well is "well designed"? If I can "intelligently" come up with a better solution, is it still "well designed"?Evolution predicts components that are "good enough"; how would we distinguished between "good enough" and "well designed"?

I don't understand why you find this an unreasonable request. When intelligent people design things, they very often sign the item, or label it in some recognizable way to say "hey, I made this!"The signature of the designer is often a feature of a designed thing. Why is it unreasonable to expect this in a cell, if the cell was designed?

Can I ask you: how long will you investigate ID without result before you conclude that your suspicion was in error?After all, at the end of the day, it's not about suspicions - it's about evidence.

Haven't we been over this?I'd accept observed intelligent design of organisms as evidence for ID. That is, I'd have to see an intelligent designer in the process of designing life. Barring that I'd need to see a designer or designers capable of designing life as we see it. Barring that I'd accept a maker's mark as evidence.Why don't you tell me what, short of actual evidence for the existence of a designer capable of making life, prompts you to suspect the presence of a designer?