Appearance of design, according to your special pleading, needs interpretation.
No, Ray, it needs to be
tested. If something that appears to be designed is found to not actually be designed, then that disproves the design inference for that object(s).
I say it means what it indicates at face value (invisible Designer, that is my interpretation).
Yes, Ray, that is your interpretation and you can hold onto it all you want, but your interpretation is NOT evidence. A superficial
prima facie appearance of design is NOT evidence for design. We are not simply interpretating the appearance of design as not designed just for the hell of it. Testing of the idea (or hypothesis, but I'm sure you have your own definition for that word, too) reveals natural processes behind the appearance of design. You are the only one doing the interpreting here.
But in your hypothetical scenario, the measurement evidence, requires no interpretation. You need to be consistent.
No, Ray, YOU are asserting that we are interpreting the appearance of design as not designed in the same manner that you interpret it as being designed (at face value). That is simply not true. Straggler is only being inconsistent
in your head because you are projecting your made-up ideas about the way science works onto the rest of us.
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
™ Version 4.2
