Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

My argument only addresses the elements of the set I have defined. It does not reference any other set or subset. You are making a straw man argument by pretending the set I am talking about is defined by your definition and not mine. It does nobody any good for you to refute fantasy arguments instead of the one laid before you.

Then you are making a straw man of biological evolution by leaving out the elements that differentiate if from the other things that fit your set.

Biological evolution is not an argument therefore it cannot be a straw man.

But I understand what you are saying and your error(and Chas's) is quite clear to me. Your error is like saying that conclusions drawn about the set of all polygons cannot be applied to the subset of triangles because the definition of all polygons leaves out elements that differentiate triangles from the rest of the set. Of course this is rubbish.

Claiming that conclusions drawn about the set of all systems which contain the elements of Replication, Heritable Traits, Change, and Selection cannot be applied to the subset of biological evolution is the same kind of rubbish. If something is true of the set I have defined, and if biological evolution is an element of the set I have defined. Then what is true of the set I have defined is also true of biological evolution in the same way that what is true of all polygons is also true of all triangles.