The last Intelligent Design debate I participated in, I couldn't get the ID fellow to answer the question in the title. So I'm curious if any other design proponents, or even just devil's advocates, would like to take a crack at it. I know that some ID leaders have been challenged on it and failed, but maybe someone here has an answer. To use the same example from the previous thread, let's say you and I come upon a waterway. It could be a natural river or an irrigation canal. How would we know whether or not it is designed? Then, taking those same ideas, what do we see in the universe that is a sign of design? BTW, in case it isn't obvious, I think ID is a sham. But here's a prime opportunity for someone to maybe (probably not) win a convert if they can succeed where so, so many have failed.
I'd like to suggest a caveat that any reply to this question cannot be based on "irreducible complexity" - since this concept has already been thoroughly debunked. ...and go. (EDIT: Not a big deal, and normally I wouldn't be pedantic, but I feel it's important to point out in this case - this thread shouldn't be in the science forum, since by all definitions, ID is not science.)
Yeah, I agree that it should be somewhere else (like Religion). I thought I'd throw a bone to the ID folks by putting it here, though. Catch more flies with honey and all that. But then there goes all my honey.
Look for the Maker's Mark. This wisecrack points out that our conceit of "designership" is inadequate. Designership is a human construction and cannot serve as model for the equally human-observed Universe. We see with limited "eyes" and interpret with limited models.
I think part of it at least would be if something could not be produced by any known natural phenomenon. I kind of think determining "design" is going to be something with fuzzy edges, and, defined by a combination of characteristics, something like the definition of life. Design presumably requires intelligent life to be behind it?
