Real Design vs. Apparent Design
First I need to clarify/ correct something I stated in that thread:
ID does not have any criteria for determining the design is illusory.
What IDists say is if there is the appearence of design we should be able to investigate further to make a firm determination, i.e. a scientific inference to the best explanation. Designed or not. Agent activity vs. nature, operating freely.
The "design is illusory" label is added only after due diligence. And it could very well be that the "appearance of design" disappears after that investigation. Just like the appearance of magic disappears once you figure out or see how the illusion was performed.
We do have and use tried and true design detection techniques. Archaeologists employ them. Forensic scientists employ them. Fire investigators employ them. SETI employs them.
Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed.-
Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education (bold added)
If something "appears" designed should we be allowed to investigate it further to figure out if it was designed?
If not, why not?
And if someone is just going to say that only appears designed should they have to substantiate that claim, scientifically?
See also- How Archaeologists Detect Design