The conversation seems to have taken a left turn into the problem of evil (which is interesting by itself, and for which I have published several papers in journals of philosophy), but back to the face problem Josh presented, I think it is an interesting one … one that I have previously put some thought into. I’d like to take a swing at it, but today is already booked for me, so I’ll have to see if I can respond on Monday. For starters, however, from reading the comments, it seems that “design”, as used by Josh, refers to any outcome of creation (the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe). As a result,
Somehow, part of Mt Rushmore looks “designed” in a way that the rest of the mountain (and Mount Everest) does not. So I think a more precise definition of “design” is needed that aligns with the way we normally use the word when we say things like “… a human designer carved it …”. What is it about that particular section of Mount Rushmore that prompts us to say it is the product of design (human in this case) vs. the rest of Mount Rushmore which does not? An objective method is needed to distinguish between the two. I’ll float something by you all on Monday.