For example, I've read Glen Morton's posts about various prehistoric
artwork. The anthropological case being made depends extremely
strongly on identifying those objects as *designed*. Yet no
anthropologist (that I know of) thinks that God painted the pictures
or carved the Venuses or whatnot. Ergo, the design is 'naturalistic'
in the sense that perfectly natural beings (neanderthals, australopithecus,
or whoever) did the designing.
So if, say, flagellae turn out to be 'designed,' how can this mean
that the data are incompatible with naturalism? Do you understand
naturalism to mean *no* intelligent participation (in which case how
do you explain the scientific use of prehistoric art in anthropology?)
or do you take it to include intelligent design, in which case how
does the data distinguish between 'naturalistic' and 'God-style'
intelligent design?
-Greg