Thank you, Mr Jack! Yours is the first truly helpful post I have ever found anywhere for getting a better of understanding ID. And the reference you cited provides exactly the kind of official, authoritative and (dare I hope?) complete exposition of the theory. Surely others have pointed to the seminal paper by Dembski, but why has this been so seldom done?
Well, it's clear that the issue of discerning the presence/absence of design for the rock in question is in fact not so simple, and there are some details to be considered carefully. To wit, in determining whether the rock may have been the result of chance, there is this vital subtletly (italics as per the original):
Invariably, what is needed to eliminate chance is that the event in question conform to a pattern. Not just any pattern will do, however. Some patterns can legitimately be employed to eliminate chance whereas others cannot.
A bit of terminology will prove helpful here. The "good" patterns will be called specifications. Specifications are the non-ad hoc patterns that can legitimately be used to eliminate chance and warrant a design inference. In contrast, the "bad" patterns may be called fabrications. Fabrications are the ad hoc patterns that cannot legitimately be used to eliminate chance.
The rock could be "fabricated" (e.g. a piece of concrete or a mosaic tile having a particular shape, size and color), but that's not the right sense of "fabrication" here, I gather. Still, those are bound to be very useful terms.
And then there is this very crucial caveat about the whole exercise:
When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter. This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes.
Well, I suppose this would be the time to appeal to something like Pascal's wager... Might as well play it safe, and chalk everything up to design. There now, we have successfully applied ID to the problem, and it really wasn't so very complicated after all!
But wait... Isn't ID only supposed to apply to living things? You know (we all know), it's really just a refutation Godless evolution, which has nothing at all to say about rocks, so maybe ID isn't supposed to apply to rocks either, which would mean that rocks can't be designed!
Heck, I'm still confused. But thanks anyway -- this has been a moving experience for me (even if the movement has been circular).
Edited by Otto Tellick, : grammar repair
autotelicadj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
taking your point re ID is only for living stuff not rocks ..
living things can sit on rocks , can pick up rocks , can throw rocks , some birds use rocks to break open snail shells .. so if the living stuff WAS designed .. some of that design took into account the exsistance of rocks .. so rocks came before designer and living stuff ...so are rocks godlike then ? or at least semi divine .. as they needed no designer ?
I can. However, I dont know how to post images on this forum.
Same way as almost all other forums. This forum uses an extended superset, called dBCodes, of the standard codes, but you can pretty much count on all the standard codes being available. Let me know if there seems to be a code missing from the repertoire.
I think for it to be designed, it must either first exist in the future as a whole, or it must be a result of informed and reasoned decisions, or the rock must be ordered according to universal language.
Ofcouse all things are created, including your rock. God is not a thing, neither are love, fear or hope things according to creationism.
2) Your level of written English is way below that which is needed to explain your ideas. I know that English is not your first language, but you are wasting your time at the moment, because your language barrier is rendering your posts into gibberish. A statement like this;
I think for it to be designed, it must either first exist in the future as a whole
is entirely devoid of meaning.
3) You have conspicuously failed to provide evidence for your future-decisions-anticipation drivel in the appropriate thread, so it is a bit rich for you to drag it in here.
Mutate and Survive
"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade