I do concede that “heap ridicule” was worded too strongly. Please accept my apologies for the inapt word choice.
“Firmly reject,” though, would be a good description of your attitude in this thread toward alternate design hypotheses.
It’s worth pointing out that you have not yet recognized that the position you seem to be advocating contains a dilemma that cannot be resolved.
Either:
We humans have no ability to “predict” God’s design choices, and therefore no human is able to determine solely on the basis of design inquiries whether a biological system reflects God’s design.
As I stated in my last post to you:
Now let’s suppose that you say, “No, Chris, you have misunderstood; I do not think it possible for any human to understand what design decisions God might make.” Okay then. If that’s the case, how can you claim to discern God’s design choice in the observations reported by scientists? You just told me that no one can discern claim to know what choices God would make! How can a particular outcome be evidence of God’s work if you cannot hypothesize a priori the work God would do?
OR:
You are advocating the necessity of a specific design.
Your choice, my friend @Daniel_Fisher. Which path do you want to commit to? The roads lead in opposite directions, and neither you nor I are quantum particles with the capacity for superposition.
Best,
Chris Falter