Why doesn't AI Falsify ID?

I'm not sure exactly how to put this succinctly, but to observe that a higher quality can be fully expressed by a lower medium, yet not comprehended by that medium. Take an audio CD, for instance. If you knew nothing of music or CDs you might analyze such a disc and get as far as finding frequency and amplitude in the pits. But you would never find beauty or sadness, or whatever other emotion the composer of the music was trying to express. You could also note that Beethoven's 5th could be expressed as sheet music, as a CD, or as a live performance. The beauty or sadness can be carried by many different media. So one has to ask if intelligence is a physical quality at all. I think not. Relative to the creation/ID debate I think the important phrase here is "appropriately constructed [computer systems]". You'll really be on to something when you find an intelligent computer system that wasn't constructed.

My objections are a whole lot simpler than what you list: I don't think evolution happened, not the 'molecules-to-man' kind of thing I presume you're talking about. So, have you got another example? The scientific method says we should be able to reproduce the results as often as possible, right? I don't follow you here - what do you mean by computers creating CFF by pure chance and necessity? Oh, I bet you the evolutionary computer. This is circular reasoning, no? Well, no, I guess you do mean literal computers. I don't follow you - bits and bytes are my line of work, so I don't know what you mean by pure chance - other than using Johnson noise in cryptology or something, a computer is a deterministic beast (sometimes you doubt that, but sure enough you left a semicolon out somewhere).And I don't know what you mean by 'chance and necessity' I guess. I think most people mean noise when they talk of chance, i.e. wideband excitation, but I don't know what you mean by necessity. Are you referring to the 'laws of nature' being deterministic?

If nothing else you can observe that they do it for only a short time. Left to themselves computers will turn into rust buckets within a few decades at best. Nature, by contrast, is alleged to have steadily and without intervention increased in complexity for 10s (100s?) of millions of years. (Yes, I know about the 'evolution in bursts' idea).

Yeah, sorry, my head is not too deeply into this and I'm going to have to do some real work soon, but the point is that your example is not complete. You've reproduced one element of life (if I grant your premise). The ecosystem is self sustaining, computers are far from it. Anyway, proving that life *could* be formed without design in no way proves that it wasn't. You seem to find design distasteful, I don't.

I think you're misunderstanding me. aiguy used the term 'no need' to theorize ID. What else does that indicate if not a preference for some other explanation? I certainly wasn't talking about anybody's morals, if that's what you mean. I'm talking about one's postulates. I never heard of CSI before. aiguy brought it up, not me. He says computers can generate CSI. Well, suit yourself, but I think that says more about the limitations of what you call science than ID. If you want to define science as excluding ID than I guess science will never be able to study ID. So I guess the thread about 'is there no way to test ID' was just a rhetorical question and I've been wasting my time.