What is logical to believe, that unguided, unintelligent processes can create novel patterns of functional design?
Before I go, I want to address this.
The evidence indicates that natural environmental processes drive change in living things over time. There is no evidence that natural process are manipulated in any way by any higher intelligent agency. No one has provided such evidence. Is it wrong to admit that fact or, in other words, is it wrong to admit that truth?
Is it logical to insist that others throw out their knowledge and understanding and accept the religious doctrines of man that demand that they reject anything that does not comply with that doctrine?
Or have we discovered, in so many fields of science other than biology, that whenever we observe functional information, an intelligent entity obviously created it?
Is it genuine to purposefully be so covert about describing those "many fields of science" and attempt to allude that these fields hold evidence that points to a designer when they do not? You are talking about sciences that study PEOPLE or the historical works of PEOPLE. We know that people have intelligence, sometimes they use it and often create things. What you are pointing out is that people are known to be intelligent and to create, but it is a non sequitur to conclude this as evidence of something unseen and unevidenced.
Always an intelligence. Never has it ever been observed that novel functional information arose through natural methods.
This is false. Snowflakes show no evidence of being designed. Natural waterways show no evidence for being designed other than by the forces of nature. Natural populations of living things do not show evidence of being designed or the past or present actions of a designer. The only populations that show design are in agriculture and we didn't make them, we just mimic nature to favor traits in those species that are useful to us.
Surely, you are not ignorant of these facts given your claims of studying all these things so deeply.
Therein lies the precedence in recognizing the origin of functional design. Except in biology….
??
Again, is it genuine to covertly refer to the known creative ability of people and imply the existence of something you have no evidence for and is not objectively known? Isn't that like saying that because so many people like something or agree with it, it must be good or true or right?
Is it right to claim that science is represented to purposefully reject a designer as the answer when it is widely and well known that science can't be used to claim as fact or explain things that have no evidence?
Is it right to make claims and when those claims are challenged, divert the topic to an irrelevant attack on the beliefs of your challenger to avoid supporting your claims or admitting that the challenger has a point?
You did mention that you have been called disingenuous. I'm just asking questions about things that might lead others to think that in order to help you understand how that might have come up.
