@colewd seems to think that, because we can accept that gravity exists without knowing the final details of how it works, we could also have accepted that gravity exists if there was no evidence that it exists.
ID Creationists are very special people.
This is a straw-man argument and is not the design argument. This is what I see in general with the anti ID arguments. The ID argument is evidence for design…hard stop. It is limited but it is legitimate and indeed testable. The causal element is a mind which we can test using human minds.
Behe’s argument is that we can detect design though the observation of a purposeful arrangement of parts. A watch follows this description as does a living cell.
Meyer’s argument is based on the observation of functional information in the cell (DNA and Protein sequences) which a mind is known to be capable of generating as we are doing right now as we communicate with (meaningful) abstract symbols sent over the internet to each other.
No, because the human mind does not cause cars or mousetraps to just suddenly appear out of thin air.
You need a mechanism by which they are brought into physical existence. ID Creationists do not even try to suggest one.
Based on what scientific standard?
According to science.
This is the equivalent of Behe’s argument:
See that car over there? It’s red.
And this apple over here? It’s also red.
Conclusion: This apple over here is a car.
Logic FTW!
This is a straw-man and a very poor one. Try to argue against their hypothesis without changing it. This is tough because Behe and Meyers arguments are limited but solid. Thats why the design argument is so viciously attacked.
Please support that assertion.
With a prediction. You will not be able to cite either of them making that argument.
Based on the scientific standard that if you propose a mechanism for a particular observation, the proposed mechanism has to be able to produce that observation. If it doesn’t, it’s not a mechanism.
Here, I’ll reword the argument in Behe’s terms to make it easier on you:
See that designed thing over there? It shows a purposeful arrangement of parts.
And this living cell over here? It also shows a purposeful arrangement of parts.
Conclusion: This cell over here is a designed thing.
No?
How would you apply that standard to the proposed mechanism for the formulation black holes?
Are you seriously saying we do not have a mechanism to explain how black holes form? Like, seriously?
Try to articulate their hypothesis to start with.
There is a thought process which believes that if an argument is impenetrable so that most do not accept it, it must be deep, and if it is deep, it must be true, and if it is true, those who do not believe must not have an open and able mind. That argument that people can design stuff, and this observation adds credence to ID, is such a sophistry. If you think otherwise, produce a direct and sound syllogism with true premises and a valid conclusion, preferably without irrelevant references to mechanisms of gravity and rainfall.
By noting that the proposed mechanism for the formation of black holes would actually produce black holes.
I don’t think mind as a mechanism follows a different standard. Moving forward as we can produce living organisms in the lab this is certainly closer to directly testing gravity forming a black hole. In both cases we believe the mechanism is up to the challenge.
All this being said I understand the design argument is limited and is at this point just a candidate alternative to test against.
See post 101.
And yet when you’ve been asked over and over and over again to tell us how simply thinking up a design causes something to exist, you never do. Are you even aware that you never answer this question?
And yet when you’ve been asked over and over and over again to tell us how simply thinking up a design causes something to exist, you never do
By design 
This is not the design argument. See post 101. Again I agree it is limited.
Moreover: There is a proposed mechanism for the formation of black holes thru gravity.
Let’s here the proposed mechanism by which flagella are poofed into existence by a non-physical mind, @colewd.