Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

We do have a clue about the designer when we compare the design of living things to other designs of known source.The designer produces designs that are just like those that applying evolutionary algorithms have produced. They can be surprisingly "ingeneous" when compared to the product of a good human designers approach and they are as gerry rigged and sometimes more wasteful that the worst (best?) joke designs as exemplified by the Rube Goldberg designs (see here Error)This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-24-2006 08:32 PM

Let me butt in and have a try:SETI has:
1) one sample of intelligent life
2) nothing to suggest that it can't happen (though it may be a very long shot)
3) a number of individual "dots" connecting the non-living to simple living forms suggesting that chemistry could have connected those dots and no reason to think it can'tSo a hypothosis (speculation even) is formed: There may be other advanced intelligences out there and some may be at the right stage of technological development.To test this hypothosis one can do a number of things:
1) look for life at a primitive level where we can
2) look for environments suitable for life something like ours (planet searchs)
3) look for technological side effects (SETI).The current searches are limited, cheap and very, very long shots but, given the pay-off, worth it.ABE
Note that for now they are not:Looking for exotic forms of life as posulated in SF for which we have no evidence at all or reason to suspect might exist.Considering searching for life forms that are so utterly different and so utterly alien we might stare them in the face and not recognize them (what could be more alien than an omnipotent god ?).They are only going where the very limited evidences suggests there is a chance (however small it may be) of success.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-27-2006 01:01 PM

As I noted a number of posts ago and you may have misunderstood: We can see the nature of the designer by examining the results and comparing. The designer looks most like evolutionary processes. There is no hint of any other kind of designer involved.

As noted elsewhere, the attributes in nature are very different from the attributes from known design. They natural "designoids" are evidence for a design process that is very unlike the processes used by the only known intelligent designers.Thus there is no reason, as yet, to look further. We have a process, an untelligent one, that produces attributes that match nature and a known intelligence that produces attributes different from nature. The present reasonable (to me)conclusion to be drawn is that nature suggests that no intelligence (of the only known form) is involved.