I have told you on multiple occasions what would convince me that there is a case for design: evidence, i.e.: 1. A visit or communication from an extra-terrestrial intelligence describing how it seeded the Earth to create life. 2. Identification of a biological organism that could not possibly be constructed via small incremental changes. 3. Identification of a present-day biological organism that shares no common traits with any other known organism, and has absolutely no prior fossil ancestry. 4. Discovery of some feature in the replicating material of a biological organism which communicates something other than the information necessary to cause the organism to replicate (e.g., a copyright, trademark, signature, logo, or other marking). There are other possible evidences which I would personally view as sufficient to cause a scientific search for design. But, they all share one common theme: a physical manifestation which can be scientifically measured. Absent such a measurable trait, no measurable evidence exists, therefore ID is no more scientifically tenable than is astrology -- in fact ID is less tenable, because at least astrology claims something which can be scientifically measured (i.e., predictability). Whereas ID claims nothing which can be measured -- it makes the bare claim of its truth and nothing more. On your second issue, if scientists first assume design, and the apply the scientific method to the evidence, the result is that design is rejected, because no evidence in support thereof exists. Whereas, evidence of evolution does exist: (1) fossils lying in statistically predictable layers of soil, radioactively dated to match with their geologic location, said fossils found in simpler and simpler forms, (2) modern biological tests which have created new species of flies, by simulating natural geographic isolation, (3) bacterial studies demonstrating dna modifications under environmental stress, etc. Unless you adopt the a-priori position that these things are all the product of the continuous intermeddling of some unseen supernatural force, then the scientific method observes nothing other than the change -- and the scientific name for that change is "evolution," because to call the change "design" implies the existence of some scientifically measurable extrinsic influence, which is not actually measured. The assumption of design is thus the assumption that magic rules the universe. And, maybe it does, but magic is outside the purview of science, so to ask that scientists assume this position is to return science to the realm of alchemy.
"The assumption of design is thus the assumption that magic rules the universe. And, maybe it does, but magic is outside the purview of science, so to ask that scientists assume this position is to return science to the realm of alchemy." False. An ET that designed the known universe would not be magic. A designed universe utilizing natural law would not be magic. A computer generated program would not be magic, nor would it produce magic. God would not be magic, God would be fully natural... Out of the purvey of science simply states the limits of science as they exist at present, and has been show to have no direct connection necessarily as to what is actually true or false... There is no evidence that rules out design, none. The assumption is made of chance, which is biased toward chance...and becomes a circular argument, as that initial assumption of chance is then used to build a supportive case for conclusions of chance...
You always advance your conclusions as if they are undeniable. Saying "False," just makes you seem disingenuous. What matters for the purposes of the scientific method is the existence of AFFIRMATIVE evidence. There is no scientific proof without an experiment, so simply saying that design cannot be excluded is not a scientific proof -- it is an appeal to magic, because you are attempting to assert the existence of something, by advancing nothing in support thereof, and something from nothing is a property of magic. Whereas, actual affirmative evidence of evolution exists, and that is not magic. As for your other examples, (1) an ET that designed the known universe is magic if its influence is presently unmeasurable, because the definition of magic is that which is unmeasurable. If something becomes measurable at some future date, due to the advance of science, then it's not magic, anymore; (2) a designed universe using natural law would have measurable indicia of design, thus evidence would exist, so show it to me, otherwise it doesn't exist, and this example is also magic; (3) I don't understand your example of a computer generated program -- it seems a non sequitur. (4) As for God not being magic, but rather natural, if that is your position, then God is measurable, the same as your extra-universal ET, so "show me da money." Where is your scientifically measurable evidence of God? If you don't have any, then this too is magic. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke. So, if you want to demonstrate that ID is technology rather than magic, you must convert it to science by affirmatively proving its existence. Until you do, ID is magic.
kjkent1: I'm not interested in what would convince you of design. I would like to know what would merely cause you to suspect design.
ID is magic? Volition/Intelligence is more "magical" than accidental [acausal] poofs? It's fascinating to me that you materialists have no category for agency as a genuine type of causation. You carve up the world into natural causes and miracles, and seem completely blind that agency -- intelligent causation -- is not ipso facto "miraculous".... Suppose some engineers go out to learn why a bridge fell. They begin with natural causes (e.g., metal fatigue), and exhaust those. In the course of their investigation, however, they discover certain patterns of evidence that lead them to think the bridge was sabotaged. It fell because someone intended it to fall. That's a real possibility. But, on returning to report their findings, they're told, "nonsense...there must be a natural explanation. Keep looking! Don't come to us with these magical hypotheses." Would we blame the engineers for scratching their heads?
Total non sequiter, piffle. Be so kind as to examine the latin roots of the word "magic', it has clearly been used in direct association with supernatural, and DIRECTLY godlike actions since time , and history as we know it began. Of course, most of these cultures worshipped numerous gods, but that doesn't matter. Your approach to trolling is about as natural as saran wrap, and far more transparent.
I didn't say that my proposed proofs would "convince me of design." I said that they would convince me that there is a "case" for design, warranting further investigation. Effectively, I've already answered your question.
Your example is based on the dual false premise that (1) all natural causes have been exhausted and falisifed, and (2) some evidence of sabotage was discovered. In the case of biology, all natural causes have not been exhausted and falisfied -- rather a majority of natural causes have been confirmed, and (2) no evidence of design has been found. Thus, your analogy fails.
James Bond: Exactly who are you trying to convince that ID is creationism? Your fellow atheists? They certainly don't need convincing so who's left? The creationists? Are you trying to convince creationists that ID is creationism?
kjkent1: I see. So proof of design wouldn't convince you of design. Proof of design merely warrants further investigation. That's like me saying proof that abiogenesis happened wouldn't convince me that abiogenesis happened. It would just convince me that an investigation of abiogenesis is warranted.