Anti-ID Rhetors

It's rather popular at the moment to be anti-ID among progressives.

An argument, if you get in an argument online with someone arguing against intelligent design then note that given their own anti-ID arguments the text that they are writing is nothing more than an artifact of the biochemical state of their physical brain events in that moment. It is not as if one can systematically detect an artifact of transphysical intelligence designing or leaving an imprint on the physical, after all. So one cannot say that their intelligence has left an imprint in their text and so perhaps one should look at them physically instead. If they reply that they know human intelligence by human convention and that is the only way to detect intelligence then I would note that if one traces their brain events back through the evolution of human convention and the language which shapes it then what sits at the end of it? Again, they are back to the biochemical state of a brain if one applies their own philosophy consistently. There is nothing in such a philosophy to draw a mind forth into thinking through the brain, so it is of little surprise that a vulgar and crude belief in Naturalism had little to do with the rise of scientia/knowledge and its application in technology.

There is no design at all in any organism or artifact if design in biological organisms is an illusion. If our pattern recognition capabilities are making us think something is designed by a mind then those are delusions based on illusion and superstition.

Given no transphysical intelligence to generate design in biological organisms there can only be illusions of design and delusions that design is evident in anything. That would include the brains of those that seem to feel that they've encoded or symbolized reality with little symbols and signs of their own "design." Their own intentions are also an illusion. The activity of their minds exists only in their imaginations.