Would you give an example? Just to make sure I understand what you are talking about
Snowflakes. Trees. Mountains. Seashells. Insects. Puppies.
The only known cuases behind the designs of these things are natural causes. Everything else is belief.
Unless, an unnatural cause is established, the only events, chance or selected that can occur are natural events.
Are you talking about the hypothetical stone that I described before?
Yes.
Sure one can infer using science if the hexagonal pattern is a result of design,
Yes. Natural design. Any other inference is incomplete and does not have the support of objective evidence that all that see it would see intelligent design.
do that all the time, when they find “something” In an archeological site, they have objective ways to determine if that “thing” was designed or just a product of nature
Sure. Archaeologists have to determine if something is the result of natural processes or if it was man made. We have evidence that man designs things. That is not really in question. What you are saying is that the existence of man made things corroborates the existence of overarching intelligent designer. This is the watchmaker argument that was refuted long ago.
I really don’t understand what you mean, do I have to establish ID before proposing it as a possible explanation?
Yes. Claims using intelligent design as the cause bear the burden of demonstrating intelligent design. Otherwise, my previous use of invisible pink unicorns is just as viable as a cause.
It sounds like circular logic,
It is not. If you claim that something is the cause of something else, you have to be able to demonstrate both or the cause has to have been demonstrated in prior work. You are assuming intelligent design. It has not been demonstrated.
If I have to establish ID before proposing any argument for ID, then by definition I will always fail, because any argument for ID would be dismissed on the basis that ID has not been establish
If it is established and supported, then that would be the wrong conclusion. The problem that intelligent design proponents have are several. One is that they assume intelligent design without realizing, perhaps not caring, that it is not established
. … but how can I establish ID if I am not allowed to make any argument?
I do not understand. You are making an argument now. No one is preventing you from doing it. Disagreeing with an argument based on reason, logic and evidence is not preventing you from making your argument.
I mean, “show to me that evolution is true, but you can’t use any argument for evolution until you establish a priory that evolution is true”
The evidence of evolution is well established. The theory explains what we see in natural populations and has stood the test of time as the best explanation we have for the relationship and diversity of living things. I do not think the science is your actual issue. It is that evolution contradicts long held dogma that is the issue. It does not contradict the existence or the belief in God.
But perhaps I am misunderstanding your point.
In part maybe, but not completely. You are getting it better than I have seen so far.