Yes, there are two reasonable ways to infer design, one is with sufficient objective evidence, we can see that designs exist for the object, and even see people creating these designs, we can visit factories making them as well. The other is that they never occur naturally. Watches, cars, buildings, shoes etc etc, these things can be evidenced as designed and created (see above), and like all such items they never occur naturally. Shoes and watches don't grow on trees...
Ha ha. Love it.
Objective evidence for objective evidence. Let's see.
Let's take the first.
sufficient objective evidence
Please give me the
sufficient objective evidence for identifying a transitional fossil.
We infer or perceive design from this...
the components of the object have 1)
specific instructions, which are 2) intended to satisfying a set of
specific requirements which are 3) intended to accomplish
specific goals or a specific goal.
That's design.
Design requires a designer - the planner - One who set the plan in motion. Hence we use the term, blueprint.
Your second is not necessary in this case, and can be ignored. However, thanks for your complete answer.
No one saw the origin. So the claim that a land-dwelling wolf-like creature evolved to a water dwelling blubber packed creature, is just as extraordinary as the claim that a supernatural being designed the first ancestors of each kind of living creature.
We both agree, we do not have to see the designer at work, to infer that the object was designed.
I hope we can also agree that an object that comes about naturally, or according to your words, "occurs naturally" can be designed.
Take this piece of information...
Scientists Create Simple Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally
How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch
Of course they used the material that was already available, and did not have to build that material. So a far superior intelligence, and one with a greater ability, actually designing everything - material and all, is not far-fetched, and so extraordinary as is claimed.
The thing is,
we know that design requires a designer. That's a fact, and we see that in what the scientists do. They use intelligence, to make sure 1) they plan; 2) they provide the right instructions, which will 3) satisfy a set of specific requirements, in order to 4) accomplish an intended goal.
Thus we can infer that the design we see in nature required not just a designer, but an intelligent designer.
Like a watch with hundreds of intricate parts, all put together with the criterion for design - whether organic or not, the intricately designed object required a maker.
The Bible puts it this way.
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. - Hebrews 3:4
It says the reason people do not accept this logic, is because they "are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is
clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are
perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. - Romans 1:18-20
It also says they wickedly make no investigation.
The above is objective evidence.
Like when someone is a hypocrite, and we can discern it, and call them out for it. We did not base that judgment on personal feelings, anymore than scientists base their judgment about transitional fossils, on personal feelings... but on evidence.
We are not always right, and that happens when we are considering circumstantial evidence, and we may not be able to prove it 100%.
The honest scientists know this well, and they can tell you that from experience.
Is their evidence objective? On what basis, and how does it differ from the evidence for God?
