What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

Working in reverse it would stand to reason that anything not made by an intelligent (creature, human, animal, being, thingy kabob) is not designed. It takes an act of will to design a thing. So an accidental rock slide causing a water dam is not designed but a beaver dam is. Drift wood is not designed the act of displaying it is designed. The effect of erosion is not designed but the presidents in Mt. Rushmore are.This does not mean that everything created by an intelligent being is designed. If I accidentally spill paint on canvas the resulting picture is not designed but if I intentionally pour paint on canvas the aforementioned picture is designed. So the result of an intentional act by an intelligent being is designed.This is the crux of IC and of SC. You might not like Dembski’s method of getting there but I think most would admit that if a thing has specified complexity then it is designed.

That is exactly what I think. From reading this board it sounds like most of the Darwinists on this board will admit design is self evident when it is the result of a human act. Seems to me that most here would accept specified complexity or intentional order as designed so long as we are familiar with its designer.Since they discount a creator of life out of hand then the same order seen in the living things is not excepted as designed.Edited by havoc, : No reason given.

What do you mean? Is it a question of understanding why you are doing a thing? If so, I’m not sure of the self awareness of a beaver but I think it must know that it is building a dam to back up the water to improve its habitat.Understanding why an act was done is probably not required to determine whether it is designed or not. Certainly we could find an artifact made by an alien and without having any idea of what their level of self awareness was we could determine that it was designed.

Im not sure who designed the circle but finding a stone tablet with a circle carved into one would be correct to assume that it was designed.I think the circle question is more conceptual ie: Who is responsible for the design? Which designer gets credit for the circle? Both interesting questions but I think they are outside of evidence of design, you have to already know that a thing was designed before you could get to your question.

So you know something is designed by the evidence of design. Now my point was that and arrow head is accepted as designed by evolutionists because they know the maker ie: man. So to them it is self evident. Maybe we don’t disagree on this point. It goes back to the inductive argument from earlier in this thread. All arrow heads are designed so this arrow head must be designed. It seems perfectly logical to me.Do you have other evidences that you are speaking of? Could you identify a thing as designed if you were unsure of its maker or originator?

I gave my thoughts earlier. I agree that if you have one meaning and I have another then we are dealing with apples and oranges.Do you have a definition?

What level of certainty would you say is required before you could say something is designed?

Taq:What if you found a rock that looked just like an arrow head but lacked the other forensic evidence that you point out. No tooling marks no other arrow heads around. My point is that I don’t think we need to know exactly how a thing was made to know that it was made. We don’t have to know its maker (although it makes it nicer) to know it has one.Edited by havoc, : No reason given.

Why? The evidence should lead to your level of certaity. I mean if you could quantify it would you be happy to say some thing was designed if you were mostly certain.At some point the odds of something happening randomly are so small they should be discounted. So if you are observing something that is not random and is not ordered by natural law then odds are it is designed.

Certainly there must be examples of arrow heads where the tooling marks have been eroded by water or wind and sand. But since all known Arrow heads have been designed and have a creator I would say it is likely designed and likely has a creator.Evidence of design:Life does not occur by chance. There is no known natural law that causes non living matter to become living matter. So there is very little chance that life and the genetic code are not designed. So at this level of certainty I am quite comfortable in saying that life was designed. Same goes for the unmarked arrow head.

Why do I have to give you this evidence? Are you saying there is no evidence for design? My point is no evidence is 100% so at what point do you make the leap to say it is designed.

I think that covers most options.

So Im assuming that you think that there is evidence for non biological design. Can you objectively observe a non biological thing and make a determination as to whether it is designed or not? Does this same evidence apply to biology? If not why not? Do you accept the same evidence in one case but not in the other?I think the evolutionist thought goes like this. Life is not designed so there is no evidence of design in life.

Pasteurization

I think most people think there is a difference between living and non living.