There isn’t ANY scientific evidence for design?
So Richard Dawkins is incorrect when he says nature gives the appearance of design?
The vast majority of cosmologists, whether working astronomy or other fields, are wrong when they study the anthropic coincidences— those coincidences are just in their head?
Remember, what you’re saying is that there is NO scientific evidence for design in nature. That’s the sort of needlessly strong statement that bespeaks of a level of certainty that is rather unscientific itself, unless one is talking only about mathematics.
The fact is, there are very few hypotheses as venerable as that of design in nature that have NO evidence for them. I realize hyperbole is inevitable in a forum devoted mostly to political issues, but such sweeping statements are generally out of place when talking about science-— see “the Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
If there’s evidence derived via the scientific method, it hasn’t been published.
Data generated via the scientific method supporting ID do not exist.
So Richard Dawkins is incorrect when he says nature gives the appearance of design?"
"That which is observed, when in conflict with established doctrine, shall not be considered as "evidence."
-----Dawkin's New Church Dogmatics