To the committed Darwinists, this might seem to be a show stopper for identifying the designer. First, this is Darwinian Cliche #2. Second, other IDists have addressed this quite adequately,
here, here, here, and here.
To Darwinians like Wesley Elsberry and Richard Dawkins, their objective is not about ID as a science. Their objective is to focus their attack and equate ID with nothing more than a religious belief. This is the reason they are focusing on the importance of demanding to identify the designer behind the design. This is obviously a specious argument at best, because we attribute artifacts to design all the time without actually knowing who the designers are. For instance if you were to drop an integrated circuit silicon chip in a remote part of the world, where the indigenous people of that area has never even seen a computer. What do you think the reaction of these people would be? Would they think that this was some naturally occurring artifact? No, the chances are they will think that it was made by someone. They might speculate that it is one of their neighboring villages or people from another island. They wouldn’t know whom, but they certainly would not think that it was naturally occurring.
Take another example that is more obvious for the unknown designer. Britain’s Stonehenge has been around for probably over 5000 years. It dates back to about 3000 BC. Who built it? There is almost universal unanimity that it is an artifact of design by human origins. The problem with this inference is that there is absolutely zero evidence that humans have designed and constructed this. Stonehenge was already there when the Celts arrived in Britain.
“No stage of the building of Stonehenge is later than about 1200 B.C., and any connection with the Druids, who flourished a thousand years later, is purely conjectural” (Jacquetta Hawkes ed., Atlas of Ancient Archaeology. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1994. 33).
The experts don’t know who these putative designers were. There is no record of any inhabitants in that area during the time of its putative design. So why is there such unanimity that Stonehenge was designed and not a natural artifact.
All the evidence for inferring design is based upon the fact that we assumed that there was a human designer. Archaeologists look for tools and signs of construction around the sites and surrounding areas. They consider the normal working of the natural world that stones don’t just break off of the mountain side in regular shape and roll into these configurations. We can safely infer that it was designed because of our knowledge of the natural world.
The key to artifacts like Stonehenge or the hypothetical space triangle (from the link above) is that the designers are unknown. ID critics like Dawkins and Elsberry have been having a good time ridiculing the comparison of known designer objects and unknown designer objects for years. They preach this sophistry to the Church of Darwin. Here we have an object where the designer is unknown, purpose unknown and yet it is almost universal that people believe that this is designed. These 2 simple facts are more than enough to completely dispute the claim that you must know the designers before inferring design.
Finally, let’s reverse the question to Darwinists. Who is the designer? Is random mutation and natural selection the designer? This is a putative conjecture and not an evidential answer. The reason is that if RM&NS is the designer then Darwinists will have to show historical evidence the actual event and not inference from historical artifacts. How did this designer designed all the biodiversity that it purportedly have produced. How did RM&NS assembled the first living DNA/RNA? How did it design the first eukaryote from a prokaryote? We need details and evidence not conjecture of a putative process of what might or could have happened. We know that is impossible because there is no way to look at that actual event. Yet Darwinists are certain about the designer. I guess that standard of inquiry does not apply to Darwinists.