It is not. The "designs" you see in Nature are the results of the interplay of normal, unintentional laws of physics. Complexity and function does not equal intentional design.
You acknowledged that we see design in nature. Design is essentially a functional arrangement of entities for a purpose.
Regardless of any explanation of why the observed design exist, it’s irrelevant to the fact that we do see design in nature. Design/purpose is an evidenced fact. Attempts of explanations are merely assumptions/claims.
The complexity of structure that successfully achieves a function always equals intentional design even If the cause is not known or understood. The lack of knowledge of the cause is never a justification to deny the evidenced characteristics of design/purpose in nature.
IOW, you can always recognize a design when you see it. Your knowledge of the designer or the lack thereof is irrelevant. It doesn’t change this fact. Its illogical to claim that a design is not designed simply because we don’t have knowledge of the design process or who is the designer. The design itself is the evidence for the designer.
True, either nothing would emerge, or a different universe would emerge, perhaps with lifeforms marveling at how fine tuned their universe is.
It’s an empty claim, the evidence is that neither the formation of the universe would be possible nor there is any other physical life system possible other than the carbon-based life.
The values and constants may be fine, but there's no evidence they're tuned. This simply puts the cart before the horse.
Not true, the evidence is that the constants are extremely fine-tuned.
The laws and constants are what they are, and they produce the universe they produce. There is no need to insert unevidenced and unneeded variables.
This is exactly what you are doing!! You insert unevidenced variables and assume it would produce unevidenced universe and unevidenced life form. It’s an empty claim.
Yes, the statistical chances of our world being as it is is very small, but the chance of any other configurations are equally small.
The chance of drawing a royal flush are very small, but exactly the same as any, same suit five card configuration
It’s a flawed logic in many ways.
First, you make an empty claim that any set of constants/variables would give rise the formation of a universe and some life form without any evidence.
Second, “statistical chances” is necessarily the function of the interaction of existing entities that create the required perquisites of chance. If nothing exists (no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no space, no time) then there is no statistical chance of any kind.
Statistical chance of our world being as is would be only possible if we accept the unevidenced/ unfalsifiable assumption of Multiverse.
But, in the case of advantageous mutations, mutations are a known and common phenomenon. The rest is just natural selection.
Mutations are a known and common phenomenon but there is absolutely no evidence that advantageous mutations emerge accidentally among endless other non- advantageous random mutations. Advantageous mutations emerge as a result of directed mutations.
Non-functional changes gets shuffled back into the deck for the next draw. Function accumulates.
Not true, there is no evidence for the alleged endless non- advantageous random mutations that is constantly getting eliminated by selection.
Complexity ≠ God or intentional design.
The criteria that identify design/intention are not dependent on our knowledge of the causes. It’s simply the successful/efficient arrangement of entities to achieve a purpose. The design is the evidence of the designer.
And viruses? -- Not organisms, and not so complex.
A virus is not considered alive, you may say it’s not as complex as a single-celled organism but yet a virion is still a very complex structure.
Define "intelligence." Are you claiming intention?
Low entropy as previously explained.
Nor is it evidence for intention or purpose. Without actual evidence of purpose, we logically withhold belief, pending further evidence. If there is intention, it's thus far unevidenced
It’s a flawed logic; purpose/intension can be seen and recognized independent from our knowledge of the designer. The design itself is the evidence of the designer. You cannot see a design and claim that you don’t have evidence of the designer. You cannot claim that the design is not designed simply because you don’t have the knowledge/understanding of the designer or the design process.
You're the one making positive -- and unevidenced -- claims. The burden's on you.
Perfection and design? How are you measuring perfection in the universe? It doesn't seem so stable, plus, it's winding down; entropy increases. As for biological perfection.... you must be joking.
Again, totally false, in your post #2593, you said,” If intentional, the operator is a very incompetent engineer, judging by how poorly designed and haphazard his creations are.”, you made a claim, demonstrate it and I’ll respond.
As I said before, perfection of a system is the level of adequacy/success of a system in achieving a goal. The extremely fine-tuned universe is perfection. The fact that every living organism is equipped with all vital systems that ensure its success in its environment is perfection.
Almost all scientists fail to see it as well. The closer you look, the more insubstantial this special pleading becomes.
You’re making a fallacious argumentum ad populum.
