In my “Three Easy Steps” post I demolished the “infinite regress poses an obstacle to a design inference” argument as follows:
Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.
Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.
Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.
A commenter who calls himself “atheist” seems to think he has a spiffy riposte when he writes:
Step 1: Assume that nature succeeds in developing life.
Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him Charles) later finds these life forms, examines them, and concludes they formed naturally.
Step 3: Charles’s inference is obviously correct. Note that the inference is not any less correct if he does not know how it initially arose.
I am not sure what your point is Mr. A. Given the terms of your hypothetical, your conclusion follows. So what? In my hypothetical I demonstrated that ID is not, in principle, defeated by the infinite regress argument. In your hypothetical you demonstrate that if nature created life it did so even if we have no idea how. You have just described the current state of origin of life research. Good for you.