I agree with your point on infinite recursion, and that is precisely why intelligent design is not a useful framework. It is a thought terminating cliche that provides the illusion of an answer without the substance of one.
Saying a designer did it, doesn’t explaining anything, and just pushes the explanation back to a theoretically complex designer who in turn needs its own explanation. This halts all scientific inquiry. If we treat junk DNA or physical constants as mysterious designs, we stop looking for their mechanical functions. It is far better to sit with the discomfort of the unknown than to embrace a pseudo answer that shuts down investigation.
I agree with your point on infinite recursion, and that is precisely why intelligent design is not a useful framework. It is a thought terminating cliche that provides the illusion of an answer without the substance of one.
Saying a designer did it, doesn’t explaining anything, and just pushes the explanation back to a theoretically complex designer who in turn needs its own explanation. This halts all scientific inquiry. If we treat junk DNA or physical constants as mysterious designs, we stop looking for their mechanical functions. It is far better to sit with the discomfort of the unknown than to embrace a pseudo answer that shuts down investigation.