Intelligent Design: Did you design yourself?

[Angrboda]

Second you claimed my method of differentiating designed from not designed was wrong....but you don't offer an alternative method which is right. I think you are wrong about your assessment of my rule for how we differentiate designed from un-designed. You claim it relies on knowing this history of an object, this is not true. It relies on our experience on how those kinds of objects come into existence.

This is knowing the history of "these kinds" of objects. The real problem is that there is no way to, by inspection of the artifact alone, determine which are "these kinds" which are designed from "these kinds" that are naturally occurring. We identify design by having a plausible story for how the article might have been designed. If you want to do the same for the current lineage of life, you also need a plausible story for how a designer did it. You have no designer and no story; therefore your inference that the current lineage is also designed is unsupported.

The example of machinery found on Pluto I used in another post, we don't need to know the history of that specific piece of machinery to know it is the product of intelligent design.

If the machine on Pluto resembled the metallic blob of a crashed asteroid, we'd have no way of knowing it was designed. You're trying to cheat by smuggling the assumption that it is a machine that has traits like a machine that we might have designed would have. If so, we would know that it was designed because it shows signs of having been worked by a designer, which, again, is something you don't have for life. Let's turn this around a bit. Let's assume that the first lineage of life on our planet is designed. Can you tell me what traits of this life show signs of having been designed? If you can't demonstrate that life on earth either was or wasn't designed by its traits, then you have no reason to suspect that it was designed rather than natural.

Our experience tells us those kind of things only come into existence via intelligent design so we have reason to rely on the assumption that this one did as well.

Only if "those kinds of things" show signs of artifice similar to the ones we make, and there were a plausible scenario for how a designer might have been responsible. As already remarked, if the machine appeared to us as an amorphous blob of metal or a lump of crystals, we'd have no reason to suspect it was a machine at all. You've loaded the example by assuming "a machine" would look like a human artifact. It wouldn't necessarily. Without knowing the typical effects of the designer, we would have know way of knowing that a specific "machine" was designed. Do you know the typical effects of the designer of the first lineage of life? No? Then you don't know that life is designed.

You stated, "...we don't know the history of the seemingly naturally occurring lineage of life on earth". You are claiming my argument must be wrong because of your a priori belief that the lineage of life on this planet naturally came into existence. This is an assumption you an others make....and really, what sort of justification do you actually have for that assumption?

First of all, it's not an assumption I make. a) I used the word 'seemingly' to imply that it has the appearance of being a naturally created lineage, I didn't assume it; and b) I've already stated that I don't know whether it was natural or designed. However you're wrong in concluding that believing the original lineage to be natural is an assumption. It's not. We have plenty of evidence of natural processes and none of any hypothetical designer. We also have plausible scenarios which might explain the origin of life which don't depend on a designer. So you're simply wrong in calling it an assumption; it's a hypothesis with evidence supporting the belief that it is a true hypothesis. Your support for the notion of the lineage of original life being designed, on the other hand, rests on a weak philosophical argument. You have no designer, and no way to measure "like those kinds of things" so that you can look at something, life or a blob of ore on Pluto, and tell it was designed solely from "experience."

If you are to examine the question objectively, you need to set aside assumptions like this and take the position that it is logically possible our lineage could be designed and it is logically possible it could be the result of naturally occurring processes.

Logically possible, yes. Is it as likely that the lineage of life is the result of design as natural processes? No.

You said, "I do know is that the development of life in this lineage can be explained by natural processes, even if its origin has not been explained". What science has shown us, is that this lineage of life can also be explained by intelligent design. Where is this designer you ask? Well where is this natural process you speak of?

Really, you're going to an argument from ignorance now? I've already pointed out that abiogenesis is not an assumption but a working hypothesis with support. Where is the support for the activity of a designer. Where is the designer. We know natural processes exist.