How To Scientifically/logically Evaluate/qualify Something Like Id

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Here in this topic, I don't want to discuss intelligent design, I only want to discuss the method used to determine if something is intelligently designed. Specifically if there should be any rules for the evaluation, to keep the evaluation directly relevant and scientific.

 

So imagine we found some hadrosaur bones, or what we believed were hadrosaur bones. If we knew what hadrosaur skeletons looked like I would argue that our method to determine they were hadrosaur bones would be to compare them to hadrosaurs.

 

So then, imagine if we are about to do our evaluation, and someone comes up to us and says, "there is a theory that all of those bones you are about to examine, are heifer-bones taken from Miss Trunchbull's lunch box."

 

What would we do if the introduction to what a theory says about the evidence in front of us, is an attempt to stop us from evaluating the bones, or MUDDY the issue (muddying-the-water fallacy)?

 

Do we reason thus;

"we now will not evaluate these bones ourselves, because the Trunchbull-theory is accepted by science."?

 

QUESTION: what if they actually ARE hadrosaur bones but because we let a theory dictate that they aren't, we abandon the evaluation? Is this the correct way to evaluate something specific? 

 

What is my point? My point is, if you want to evaluate something to see if it is intelligently designed, then any talk of what a theory says about the evidence in question, is EXTRANEOUS/IRRELEVANT TO THE EVALUATION.

 

Because the Trunchball-theory is mentioned in order to MUDDY-THE-WATER, strict logical rules show us that ANY THEORY about the evidence we are able to examine ourselves, must be left out of the evaluation BECAUSE we can directly evaluate the evidence.

 

So when it comes to lifeforms, we have them available. They are tangible, we can study their anatomy. We also know things that are designed like cars and buildings and helicopters and computers, are also tangible. We can directly examine the things that make the things we know to be designed, designed, then we can directly examine the anatomy of lifeforms to see if they have the same qualities.

 

Evolution should NOT come into the matter, for we are creating an objective evaluation to determine whether something is designed, any INDIRECT comments about what theories "say" about the evidence, is logically irrelevant.

[nandoschicken 5]

So when it comes to lifeforms, we have them available. They are tangible, we can study their anatomy. We also know things that are designed like cars and buildings and helicopters and computers, are also tangible. We can directly examine the things that make the things we know to be designed, designed, then we can directly examine the anatomy of lifeforms to see if they have the same qualities.

 

 

The analogy doesn't hold.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Nando: The analogy doesn't hold.

 

What analogy? It was a statement of fact. Are you saying we don't have lifeforms available to study and we don't have computers available to study?

 

Also, what analogy? Have you learnt the word, "analogy" but not the meaning?

[jansen 3]

The analogy doesn't hold.

Precisely. 

 

We also know of no mechanism which would produce a car other than intelligent design. In the case of lifeforms we have a mechanism that it explains their existence rather well.

[Bonedigger 42]

Precisely. 

 

We also know of no mechanism which would produce a car other than intelligent design. In the case of lifeforms we have a mechanism that it explains their existence rather well.

 

No. Not precisely. Nandoschicken already got a warning about that empty fluff negative one-liner. Do I need to warn you too?

Between the two of you you've filled this forum up with nothing but unsupported assertions for the last two days.

 

"Our objective is quality, not quantity" If you're not going to even bother to try to support your claims with evidence, then don't waste our time by making them!

[jansen 3]

If you would like to discuss this in the context of science then please list your criteria and how they are to be objectively quantified.

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

In the case of lifeforms we have a mechanism that it explains their existence rather well.

 

 

Really??  Well then,

 

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !

 

Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...

 

"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."

Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

 

Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room... 

 

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

 

 

Let's see the mechanism....?

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Evolution isn't really relevant to this discussion, Jansen. Repeating the error I exposed in message one, by re-muddying the water, will only tell us that you haven't yet understood the opening message.

 

You have to understand what I am trying to say here.

 

Imagine if I were to ask someone, "I want to find out if something is designed, what do I do?"

 

Firstly, it should not matter what the thing is that I am claiming is designed, be it a handbag or a rabbit or a building, we should be able to objectively evaluate it. That is the most important theme. For how can it be objective to deny the results of an evaluation which could be shown to give you a way of determining whether something is designed or not?

 

That evaluation, would bring conclusions based on a sound method of testing, so scientifically speaking, it should not matter what the thing is that is being tested otherwise subjective-bias would have been introduced to the test.

 

The fact you bring up "evolution" means that you have already primed your mind with a prejudice that won't allow you to even begin the objective evaluation. You close the door on it while it is on the threshold. It would be like admitting entry to every person that comes through a door, but closing it on any black people that attempt to come through. (discrimination/bias/prejudice). 

 

So then, if you are a scientific person, those results should influence your view of evolution theory, rather than evolution-theory influencing your view of the test. For my test could show you if something is intelligently designed or not. Does that not matter to you? Is the truth of the matter, irrelevant to you? Do you just want to say evolution is true even if it can be shown that ID is true? How peculiar given you call yourself, "theist".

 

"theist" can mean a lot of things in my opinion, and one of those things it usually means is "atheist" especially if "evolutionist" comes after it.

 

Any true Christian/theist would be absolutely DELIGHTED with joy if miraculous intelligent design could be proven over evolution. For wouldn't that bring honour/glory to God? Is that something you would not welcome as a, "theist"? 

[driewerf 30]

Evolution isn't really relevant to this discussion, Jansen. Repeating the error I exposed in message one, by re-muddying the water, will only tell us that you haven't yet understood the opening message.

The only poster who has used the word "evolution" in the thread is you, Mike.

You want to discuss Intelligent design. Fine. That is what jansen asked for. So there is no need to go on the defensive. Simply start what you had in mind.

 

 

The fact you bring up "evolution" means that you have already primed your mind with a prejudice that won't allow you to even begin the objective evaluation. You close the door on it while it is on the threshold. It would be like admitting entry to every person that comes through a door, but closing it on any black people that attempt to come through. (discrimination/bias/prejudice). 

Jansen didn't bring up evomution. In his post the word evolution isn't even used. The full text is:

 

 

If you would like to discuss this in the context of science then please list your criteria and how they are to be objectively quantified.

[jansen 3]

Evolution isn't really relevant to this discussion, Jansen. Repeating the error I exposed in message one, by re-muddying the water, will only tell us that you haven't yet understood the opening message.

 

You have to understand what I am trying to say here.

 

Imagine if I were to ask someone, "I want to find out if something is designed, what do I do?"

 

Firstly, it should not matter what the thing is that I am claiming is designed, be it a handbag or a rabbit or a building, we should be able to objectively evaluate it. That is the most important theme. For how can it be objective to deny the results of an evaluation which could be shown to give you a way of determining whether something is designed or not?

 

That evaluation, would bring conclusions based on a sound method of testing, so scientifically speaking, it should not matter what the thing is that is being tested otherwise subjective-bias would have been introduced to the test.

 

The fact you bring up "evolution" means that you have already primed your mind with a prejudice that won't allow you to even begin the objective evaluation. You close the door on it while it is on the threshold. It would be like admitting entry to every person that comes through a door, but closing it on any black people that attempt to come through. (discrimination/bias/prejudice). 

 

So then, if you are a scientific person, those results should influence your view of evolution theory, rather than evolution-theory influencing your view of the test. For my test could show you if something is intelligently designed or not. Does that not matter to you? Is the truth of the matter, irrelevant to you? Do you just want to say evolution is true even if it can be shown that ID is true? How peculiar given you call yourself, "theist".

 

"theist" can mean a lot of things in my opinion, and one of those things it usually means is "atheist" especially if "evolutionist" comes after it.

 

Any true Christian/theist would be absolutely DELIGHTED with joy if miraculous intelligent design could be proven over evolution. For wouldn't that bring honour/glory to God? Is that something you would not welcome as a, "theist"? 

If you would like to discuss this in the context of science then please list your criteria and how they are to be objectively quantified.

[nandoschicken 5]

Mike, we struggle to define what "intelligence" is, even between people. I don't think you will get close to an answer without defining what intelligence is. If you can't, then how can you detect intelligent design? Part of what makes helicopters and computers designed is that they are artificial objects. In contrast, lifeforms are part of nature: they interact with inorganic chemistry, light, water and they decompose, and the energy contained in their bodies is used by other lifeforms when they die. Life is fundamentally different to anything humans can make.

[Fjuri 119]

When we first saw Hadrosaur bones, we defined them as such. And we can find elements that make a skeleton a Hadrosaur skeleton.

When we see an helicopter, we can see elements that make up design.

- specified complexity

- redundant systems for safety

- etc.

This is the definition setting part. These definition contain limits. For instance the Hadrosaur skeleton identification definition makes no statement with regard to their habitat. And the design definition makes no statement with regard to the designer.

 

Now we look at nature and if we find a new skeleton we can compare it with the Hadrosaur skeleton to see if it matches the elements required to make it a Hadrosaur skeleton.

And we can look at nature and we can compare nature's "designs" with our set definition as design and we can evaluate it that they are designed.

This is the evaluation part.

 

Some people hypothesize where the Hadrosaurs could live (despite that not being part of the definition of Hadrosaur bones). They usually use other data, like where the skeletons are found.

Some people hypothesize that design must be done by an intelligence (despite that not being part of the definition of design). Yet no other data suggest a supernatural designer.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Fjuri: Some people hypothesize that design must be done by an intelligence (despite that not being part of the definition of design). Yet no other data suggest a supernatural designer.

 

That is also EXTRANEOUS to the evaluation. I never ever mentioned "who" or, "what" the designer is. We are talking about a strict evaluation to decide whether something is intelligently designed or not according to the law of the excluded middle. Evolution would be extraneous to that evaluation, so would any talk of Who designed the creatures. We are only looking for a conclusion as to whether they are designed or not. Definitions won't save you this time Fjuri, semantics are your usual tactic but this time my case is crystal clear, there is no error with an objective evaluation to determine whether a said object is designed. No error. For that is a totally objective and direct-application of logic and science. There is no way around it.

 

Yes, intelligently designed life would definitely FAVOUR an omniscient designer, but that discussion would be separate to the evaluation, for the evaluation itself is totally objective.

[jansen 3]

I addressed this in the other thread but my points were mostly ignored. The biggest problem with objectively determining if something is intelligently designed is that the only objective criterion that exists is duplication. Can we intelligently design the thing in question? For everything we know to be intelligently designed that is the case. For living organisms that is not the case. 

 

Mike would have us believe that by simply looking at an organism we should be able to conclude that it was intelligently designed. His reason for this? When he looks at an organism he concludes that it's intelligently designed. But this is entirely subjective and relies only on the appearance of the organism because there is nothing there to quantify. 

[popoi 1,081]

So when it comes to lifeforms, we have them available. They are tangible, we can study their anatomy. We also know things that are designed like cars and buildings and helicopters and computers, are also tangible. We can directly examine the things that make the things we know to be designed, designed, then we can directly examine the anatomy of lifeforms to see if they have the same qualities.

Having qualities in common isn't enough to draw a conclusion. You also have to prove that those qualities are only found in things that are in the category you're testing for. In this case, you basically have to prove that life was designed.

[Enoch 2021 412]

Mike, we struggle to define what "intelligence" is, even between people. I don't think you will get close to an answer without defining what intelligence is. 

 

Intelligence:capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts,meanings, etc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/intelligence

 

Intelligence: The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/intelligence

 

 

If you can't, then how can you detect intelligent design? 

 

Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.  The difference between this...

 

 

 

And this...

 

 

 

This alone DWARFS (by exponential magnitudes) the Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity in any Sand Castle.  

The Amazing Kinesin ...

 

 

 

Part of what makes helicopters and computers designed is that they are artificial objects.

 

All of what makes helicopters and computers designed is THAT THEY ARE Designed.  They're not "Emergent Properties" of Copper, Iron Ores, and Silicon.

 

All objects "Decay"/wear out, it's called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

 

In contrast, lifeforms are part of nature

 

Everything in the Universe is 'a part' of Nature. 

 

 

Life is fundamentally different to anything humans can make.

 

 

Life is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.

 

 

 

regards

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

I think this thread so far is a fascinating INSIGHT into cognitive dissonance. Watching the mental-gymnastics used by the evolutionists to WRIGGLE out of the fact that we can tangibly test/evaluate what a design is, is pretty revealing. The suspicions I had about none of them being objective despite their constant ipse-dixit appeals to science, is born out.

 

Look it really is very simple. To know if something is intelligently designed the first step of the evaluation is TOTALLY SOUND to anyone with an IQ above 4. That first step is this; we test to see what makes KNOWN intelligent-designs, designed.

 

"Oh Mike, that is such bad logic, for that would be like saying that everything that makes a human a human makes a human a human. You can't be more wrong there. And Mike, if you have every element that makes a helicopter, you can't possibly argue that you have a helicopter."

 

So the evolutionists are suggesting that the following syllogism is incorrect:

 

Every element that makes someone a human, makes them a human. (those elements: human anatomy/DNA/persona, tc..)

Mike has those elements

Therefore Mike is a human.

 

If you don't think that syllogism is incorrect then you can't pretend the ID syllogism is incorrect, for when we examine intelligent designs we find all of the elements, (now read this part very slowly evolutionists)..THAT MAKE THEM intelligently designed. THAT is why they are designed, for that is what makes them designed. It is not a coincidence that we find contingency-planning in sophisticated designs, it is not a coincidence that we find specified complexity, unless you believe a sand castle was created by the waves of the sea. It is not a coincidence that a helicopter is made of the correct materials, instead of being made of candy floss.

 

Let's say we come across a lump of metal in a field. It has contingency planning, specified complexity, information. Are the evolutionists saying it is not designed? LOL.

 

THESE ARE the things that make something indisputably designed. It is not an opinion, it is an actual fact of life. There is no sophistry/rhetoric, so far in this thread offered by evolutionists, that changes the deductive logic I have used, or changes that it is sound. What we do have so far is a bunch of opinionated pifflehoffs THINKING that their obtuse rhetoric changes what I have said. It doesn't. The steps are so clear a 4 year old could get them the first time out. You don't "get" them because you are brainwashed atheists. Any genuine agnostic would at least get why my argument can't be wrong, (the intelligent ones anyway).

 

You guys are arguing not only with me, but with the laws and rules of logic. You are asking us to believe the law-of-identity is not sound logic and that a syllogism that is formally valid with true premises, is not a sound syllogism.

 

I'm sorry, but the very rules of logic are on my side. Is it my fault you don't have an inkling as to what those rules are?

 

You guys don't even qualify as being valid participants in this debate, because you just haven't studied.

[jansen 3]

The Wiz:

 

Every element that makes someone a human, makes them a human. (those elements: human anatomy/DNA/persona, tc..)

Mike has those elements

Therefore Mike is a human.

 

 

Do you know what all known intelligently designed things have in common? A known designer. Do you know what all living organisms lack? A known designer.

 

A known designer is part of what constitutes intelligent design. This element is lacking in living organisms. 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

Jansen: Do you know what all known intelligently designed things have in common? A known designer. Do you know what all living organisms lack? A known designer.

 

A known designer is part of what constitutes intelligent design. This element is lacking in living organisms. 

 

Denial of the antecedent fallacy. As I already explained to you in another thread.

 

All the elements of humans make someone human.

Mike does not have all the elements as he was born without arms.

Therefore mike is not human.

(Denial of antecedent.)

 

There are many intelligently-designed things that don't have ALL of the elements of intelligent design.

 

Also, your argument is not totally accurate anyway because there are some objects such as the ancient Greek computer, and we don't know who designed it or for a long time did not know:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jul/30/archaeology.astronomy

 

(as you can see, I have already thought through your complaints. A long, long time ago. Did you think that such a basic complaint would be unknown to me and did you really think I had never thought of your complaint?

 

If you found an object in a field, with information, specified complexity and contingency planning, would you conclude it was not designed? If so, you are out of your mind and will say anything in order to hold on to the evolution-delusion).

 

If you would conclude the object was designed, then you SHOULD conclude life is designed if it has the same design-features, otherwise you commit special pleading fallacy, for it would be blatant discrimination/bias, for it would be like saying, "this man is a 1st class human but this second man is 2nd class as his skin colour is different".

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

Do you know what all known intelligently designed things have in common? A known designer. Do you know what all living organisms lack? A known designer.

 

{emphasis mine}

 

Ahhh, No.  You've added your little mind numbing qualifier "KNOWN"   .  Was Stonehenge Designed?  Who was the Designer...?

 

 

All intelligently designed things contain (AGAIN, see above):  Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.

 

 

 

A known designer is part of what constitutes intelligent design.

 

 

Now it's correct; however, somewhat redundant. 

 

 

This element is lacking in living organisms. 

 

 

The Compelling Factor in the Matter is Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.....errr INFORMATION.

 

The Element present in ALL LIVING ORGANISMS:

 

"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. 

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) 

http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html

 

 

Our Argument (which you've seen before and "DODGED") is an Intelligent Designer and INFORMATION is EXHIBIT A to Z !!! Your refutation is (LOL)....

 

You walk into a restaurant, open up the Menu and read "Peking Duck with Roasted Garlic $28.95" ---- INFORMATION; then conclude, that until you see the Specific Intelligent Agent that wrote it.... that there's an Equal Chance that the Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules that make up the menu are responsible for the: Construction, Arrangement of the Letters, and the Message Thereof !!!!!  for cryin out loud. * This is the ENTIRE Foundation of your World-View, for goodness sakes.

 

DNA contains INFORMATION: Algorithms "Programs" within "Programs" in Sub-Folders of "Programs".  It has enough Functionally Specific Complex Information (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) in a teaspoon to fill a stack of Books from here to the Moon 500 Times!!! Your conclusion: Absent the Specific Intelligent Agent...... Ribose, Nucleo-Bases, and Activated Phosphates (The Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules) wrote The "Programs" (Menu).....Genetic CODE !!!!!

 

Shroom-Induced Coma is being KIND.   

 

 

regards

[nandoschicken 5]

 

 Watching the mental-gymnastics used by the evolutionists to WRIGGLE out of the fact that we can tangibly test/evaluate what a design is, is pretty revealing

 

As has been pointed out mike, you can't tangibly show that life was intelligently designed. You can believe it was designed, but there is no way you can make a positive demonstration of this. That is, unless you can show an IDr doing something. Then it would be very easy to demonstrate.

 

 

Every element that makes someone a human, makes them a human. (those elements: human anatomy/DNA/persona, tc..)

Mike has those elements

Therefore Mike is a human.

 

Yes but you know what a human looks like, which is the logical proof for this exercise. You do not know what an intelligent designer would look like, you can only make an analogy, based on humans.

 

By the same argument:

 

Fish lay eggs

an egg contains new life

therefore all life was created by a giant fish

 

God created humans in his image

Humans are animals

Therefore, god is an animal

 

The moon contains the elements of a football (spherical, textured surface, obeys gravity)

Therefore, the moon is a football.

 

Life has elements of design

Therefore it is designed

 

These are all internally consistent logical arguments, but they are not necessarily externally consistent.

 

In order to conclude that life actually is designed, you would have to demonstrate an intelligent designer. Otherwise you haven't actually shown anything.

[jansen 3]

Denial of the antecedent fallacy. As I already explained to you in another thread.

 

All the elements of humans make someone human.

Mike does not have all the elements as he was born without arms.

Therefore mike is not human.

(Denial of antecedent.)

 

There are many intelligently-designed things that don't have ALL of the elements of intelligent design.

 

Also, your argument is not totally accurate anyway because there are some objects such as the ancient Greek computer, and we don't know who designed it or for a long time did not know:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jul/30/archaeology.astronomy

 

(as you can see, I have already thought through your complaints. A long, long time ago. Did you think that such a basic complaint would be unknown to me and did you really think I had never thought of your complaint?

 

If you found an object in a field, with information, specified complexity and contingency planning, would you conclude it was not designed? If so, you are out of your mind and will say anything in order to hold on to the evolution-delusion).

 

If you would conclude the object was designed, then you SHOULD conclude life is designed if it has the same design-features, otherwise you commit special pleading fallacy, for it would be blatant discrimination/bias, for it would be like saying, "this man is a 1st class human but this second man is 2nd class as his skin colour is different".

 

 

Denial of the antecedent fallacy. As I already explained to you in another thread.

 

All the elements of humans make someone human.

Mike does not have all the elements as he was born without arms.

Therefore mike is not human.

(Denial of antecedent.)

 

 

The problem here is that we're not talking about "all the elements" that make something intelligently designed. We're talking about those elements you find in living organisms. You are using two sets and looking for similarities and then suggesting that because they share these characteristics they must also share other characteristics which you have not demonstrated they share. It's fallacious and you know it. 

 

There are many intelligently-designed things that don't have ALL of the elements of intelligent design.

 

Then according to your own syllogism they aren't intelligently designed. 

 

Also, your argument is not totally accurate anyway because there are some objects such as the ancient Greek computer, and we don't know who designed it or for a long time did not know:

 

 

We may not have known who the exact designer was but seeing how it is composed of elements we use in our designs it seems fair to infer that it was intelligently designed. 

 

(as you can see, I have already thought through your complaints. A long, long time ago. Did you think that such a basic complaint would be unknown to me and did you really think I had never thought of your complaint?

 

 

Of course not, Mike. We all know that you're a Wiz.

 

If you found an object in a field, with information, specified complexity and contingency planning, would you conclude it was not designed? If so, you are out of your mind and will say anything in order to hold on to the evolution-delusion).

 

 

What object? And how do you quantify these characteristics this thing possesses?

 

If you would conclude the object was designed, then you SHOULD conclude life is designed if it has the same design-features, otherwise you commit special pleading fallacy, for it would be blatant discrimination/bias, for it would be like saying, "this man is a 1st class human but this second man is 2nd class as his skin colour is different".

 

You still have not listed these features and given us a way of quantifying them. You keep repeating yourself that we should see what you see. Science doesn't work that way. 

[Fjuri 119]

Definitions won't save you this time Fjuri, semantics are your usual tactic but this time my case is crystal clear, there is no error with an objective evaluation to determine whether a said object is designed. No error. For that is a totally objective and direct-application of logic and science. There is no way around it.

They don't need to save me. If you read closely I actually tried helping you in explaining your methodology of searching for designed objects.

Don't disagree to disagree.

I often care for definitions because I want to avoid semantic discussions. Define your words up front and no semantic discussion can take place. You decide which definitions are used in your statements. Not us. Us asking for them is not a semantic discussion (because I don't state they're wrong, unless they're fallacious in that context).

 

That is also EXTRANEOUS to the evaluation. I never ever mentioned "who" or, "what" the designer is. We are talking about a strict evaluation to decide whether something is intelligently designed or not according to the law of the excluded middle. Evolution would be extraneous to that evaluation, so would any talk of Who designed the creatures. We are only looking for a conclusion as to whether they are designed or not. ...

 

Yes, intelligently designed life would definitely FAVOUR an omniscient designer, but that discussion would be separate to the evaluation, for the evaluation itself is totally objective.

I actually prefer talking about designed, rather than intelligently designed stuff. If you combine the two ("intelligent" and "designed") you do make an assessment of the originator. You would need to add elements of this originator in the criteria to call something "intelligently designed".

 

Jansen, Nandochicken, do you guys realize that evolution is a designer?

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

I actually prefer talking about designed, rather than intelligently designed stuff. If you combine the two ("intelligent" and "designed") you do make an assessment of the originator. You would need to add elements of this originator in the criteria to call something "intelligently designed".

 

 

 

Say what?

 

If you combine the two "Intelligent and Design" it's somewhat redundant because they are MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE; since to have The Consequent "Design" it's Antecedent and Necessary Condition is always.... "Intelligence".

 

 

Design:

1. A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made

2. Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/design

 

 

 

Jansen, Nandochicken, do you guys realize that evolution is a designer?

 

 

Yes and Wave Equations have Social Security Numbers 

 

 

 

regards

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Fjuri: I actually prefer talking about designed, rather than intelligently designed stuff. If you combine the two ("intelligent" and "designed") you do make an assessment of the originator. You would need to add elements of this originator in the criteria to call something "intelligently designed".

 

Like Enoch said though, even within the term, "design" is the intelligence shown by the design itself. If a building is designed it means it is purposefully, specifically complex. That is to say, every wall, every arch, every door, every space, is there on purpose. Imagine then how SILLY it would be to state that the pupil of an eye is not in that part of the eye on purpose or that the retina is not in the correct place on purpose. Since the whole construct has the correct parts in the correct places, how can it not be there on purpose, it would be a contradiction of the blatant facts.

 

So then if we ask the question; "where is the intelligence in this motor-vehicle?" when we observe how the differential SOLVES wheelspin, merely by looking at the interaction of the gears, how they are cleverly arranged, shows us the intelligence, because like with the eye, the parts are only ever CORRECT. Chance would not do this, because random chance is the opposite of specificity, by definition.

 

When we look at the anatomy of a bird's wing for example, it has a locking system with hooks, barbs, and barbules. The anterior barbules and the posterior barbules are part of a complex system. Under the microscope you can actually see the little hooks. This is a very intelligent way of keeping the feathers tight. 

 

Since evolution is not part of the discussion, we can only conclude from a direct evaluation, the obvious. That the intelligence of the aerodynamics in a bird, the intelligence of the locking system for feathers, the lightweight yet flexible/strong design of the feather, the brilliant energy efficiency of the species, all of these things show obvious intelligent design but not only this, they show a superior level of intelligence to human design.

 

So really an analogy is this; imagine you want to prove someone is a proficient and adept cake-baker, but instead of examining the cake to find out if it is well baked, you examine it and find out that it is professionally baked.

 

That is DOUBLE confirmation, that not only do you have a baker, but you have a professional baker.