To be charitable, I think he has a point that design is a question of mental operations, intent, if that was his point. The objects or artifacts are the result, but it is the presence or absence of a subjective state by an agent as to whether design has occurred. If I trip and break a vase, that's not design.
That being said, the problems with the rest of his claim are legion, but the most important are, as Mister Agenda stated, needing a reference class of things that aren't designed, and second, defining what the appearance of design is, if it indeed exists. Klorophyll believes the latter is relatively straightforward, but he's obviously been reading a bunch of similarly minded morons who really don't know what they're talking about. Defining an appearance of design is a challenging task, and the state of play is that no one has succeeded there, though morons like Klorophyll with little competence and understanding often think otherwise. This question has been plumbed ad nauseum by much smarter minds and found lacking. But hope springs eternal for idiots and creationists.
That being said, the problems with the rest of his claim are legion, but the most important are, as Mister Agenda stated, needing a reference class of things that aren't designed, and second, defining what the appearance of design is, if it indeed exists. Klorophyll believes the latter is relatively straightforward, but he's obviously been reading a bunch of similarly minded morons who really don't know what they're talking about. Defining an appearance of design is a challenging task, and the state of play is that no one has succeeded there, though morons like Klorophyll with little competence and understanding often think otherwise. This question has been plumbed ad nauseum by much smarter minds and found lacking. But hope springs eternal for idiots and creationists.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
