"What's the evidence?"

That's up to you. I don't know what would be sufficient to you.

"The SETI scientists have candidates for sending messages; naturally evolved intelligent ETs who have reached a certain technological level."

The assumption about "technological level" makes sense, but how does the part about "naturally evolved" inform their methodology? If a supernatural intelligence tried to contact SETI, would they be unable to detect it?

I'll bet you'd make a good lawyer.

Thanks, Douglas; I try to be a good lawyer.

Okay. So, let's say you've found the evidence that you considered sufficient to conclude that the flagellum was designed. Now, feel free to use this evidence to find out something about the designer.

What's the evidence?

So, what's the point of finding out stuff about the designer, if you've already made up your mind as to who it is?

There's a difference between having a candidate and having already made up your mind. The SETI scientists have candidates for sending messages; naturally evolved intelligent ETs who have reached a certain technological level. Apparently, once you formed that hypothesis, you would move on to other things; what the SETI scientists have done instead is formed hypotheses about where and what to look for, and are conducting searches based on their hypotheses.

"I'm saying that if you don't have a candidate for the identity of the designer, you lack any basis for detecting design."

I'll bet you'd make a good lawyer.

"The evidence that causes you to believe an object was designed should also tell you something about the designer."

Okay. So, let's say you've found the evidence that you considered sufficient to conclude that the flagellum was designed. Now, feel free to use this evidence to find out something about the designer.

Yet on the other hand, we have this:

"I'm saying that if you don't have a candidate for the identity of the designer, you lack any basis for detecting design."

So, you have to investigate the designed objects to find out something about the designer. But before you know what actually is designed, you need to already have a candidate for the identity of the designer. So, what's the point of finding out stuff about the designer, if you've already made up your mind as to who it is?

Supppose you had come to the belief that there was evidence of the flagelllum being designed. From this conclusion, how would you identify the designer?

Its not the conclusion that allows you to identify the designer, but the evidence that leads you to the conclusion that something was designed. The evidence that causes you to believe an object was designed should also tell you something about the designer. If you can't tell anything about the designer from the evidence of design, then I have to say that I seriously doubt that you actually have evidence of design. Perhaps you can give me an example of where design of something was detected without revealing any information about the designer.

Are you telling me that unless I have a candidate for the identity of the designer, I must accept the God of orthodox Christianity?

I'm saying that if you don't have a candidate for the identity of the designer, you lack any basis for detecting design.

"The only argument I see in Cob's post is:

D,J,B think the Christian God is the designer"

You talkin' 'bout me? (By the way, I'm singular, but looking.)

Of course, if he wants to show that the Christian concept of God is scientifically false, he'd have to go beyond testing for ID and come up with a test for the Christian-God-as-Designer. For example, a scientific conclusion that rules out ID simply doesn't negate theistic evolution. In fact, from the theological perspective, an investigation into ID is not about establishing the truth of design, but determining what design can be detected by sentient beings with rather primitive minds and tools.

"I did."

No, you didn't. No need to tell me your personal opinion; I already know that you don't think there's any evidence for design and that it's all a charade to have creationism taught in schools. Here's the point TomG made:

"It is sufficient for ID to make a conceptual distinction between the two questions here: 'is there evidence of design?' and 'from where did design (if it exists) come?'"

Try really adressing the logic here, instead of just reaching for the nearest anti-ID slogan. Supppose you had come to the belief that there was evidence of the flagelllum being designed. From this conclusion, how would you identify the designer?

"The point I made about SETI also applies; if you have no hypothesis about the designer and his capacities, how do you form hypotheses about what his design should look like?"

I never said I had no thoughts about the designer and its capacities; I just don't consider them that important when thinking about design.

However, this whole discussion started with "Thought Pimp's" conflation of ID with "orthodox Christianity", which you insisted wasn't a stereotype. Are you telling me that unless I have a candidate for the identity of the designer, I must accept the God of orthodox Christianity?

I did. So far, there is no evidence of design, yet design advocates continue to flog the dead horses of IC and SC. This is because for most of them, the conceptual distinction between evidence of design and where design comes from is only a facade they maintain for the media and the courts; when talking to the faithful the distinction disappears and the ID becomes God. The point I made about SETI also applies; if you have no hypothesis about the designer and his capacities, how do you form hypotheses about what his design should look like?