What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

Percy writes:Where Dembski is right, in my view, is in thinking that the problem must be approached mathematically.

Percy writes:Hmmm. Without reading back, didn't you already agree that you hadn't defined design? Maybe not, but otherwise isn't what you're doing is identifying things done or made by people?--Percy

Perdition writes:Par for the course. Most IDists tend to scatter once we star asking for specifics. Either that, or they ignore those requests and keep making bald assertions. I have to admit, I'd much rather they stop talking rather than ignore our questions, but I'd love it if one of them would have the courage of their convictions and stick around honestly.

slevesque writes:I Think you are going in the wrong direction in this discussion. The issue is not if there are designed things that can look just like undesigned things, but if there are specific attributes that you will only ever observe when looking at something that was designed. This is not saying, of course, that all designed things have these attributes, but rather that if you do observe one, then it was designed.One such criteria that was proposed by the ID movement was irreducible complexity, another was specified complexity.I have seen other criteria proposed such as emergent properties but it was a bit ill-defined. The basic idea was that if a certain numbers of pieces were arranged in a specific way in order to have a new property emerge (such as the arrangement of metal that makes a plane fly), then it was designed.So it not really what characteristic do all designed thing have in common, but rather what characteristic can identify something as designed if it is present.

slevesque writes:You can inductively conclude design in those instances.

ringo writes:Now, what about the dam? How can you tell whether the rocks fell into the river accidentally or were thrown there by me?

Taq writes:I would call it non-controversial. When an archaeologist is digging at a site and comes across an arrowhead and an earthworm which one do you think he sends back to a museum as an artefact of intelligent engineering?

NoNukes writes:I'm sure beavers know what they are building and why.In my opinion the question is whether beavers make intelligent, conscious choices that affect the structure or functioning of the dam. Perhaps you know whether beavers do that and maybe I just don't know enough about beavers.

NoNukes writes:That "knowledge" might be mere instinct. If so would that still constitute design?

havoc writes: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?

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

havoc writes: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.

havoc writes:Certainly there must be examples of arrow heads where the tooling marks have been eroded by water or wind and sand.

havoc writes: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.

havoc writes:I think that covers most options.