quote:
Since intelligent design by humans is the only unquestionably verified example of design that we have, would it make sense to qualify something as intelligent design even if it clearly goes against universal properties of that human design?
This type of argument avoids the fact and presumes that design is the only position lacking positive and absolute available evidence, concerning the physical world.
Its a kind of a side issue, to the main point that needs to be resolved, concerning the available evidence and what it suggests for design and the TOE
It is far from a side issue. It's one of the
fundamental issues that will need to be resolved before you will be able to substantiate your "fact" that is supposedly "avoided".
If you want to argue about intelligent design in nature, you either gotta be able to demonstrate that you can
precisely define the properties of intelligent design (one way to recognize it), or as a fallback at least be able to make everyone agree about whether something is intelligently designed or not on the basis of a less stringent
"you recognize it when you see it" approach.
Upon closer look (see remarks above), at least the "you recognize it when you see it" fallback won't cut it, because investigation of the facts often indicates the
opposite of what we would recognize as "intelligent design" based on our human experience.
™ Version 4.2