Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

I hope this is in the spirit of the OP. I want to look at what ID theorists should be doing to make ID scientific.They currently have a concept of specified complexity. They should start with that, and develop a measuring procedure whereby they could measure the degree of an object, whether that object be a rock, a snowflake, a geode or a mouse.Since they want to deal with design, they should also be investigating empirical procedures for locating/identifying the designer.With those two parts in place, they could then attempt an empirical investigation on what the degree of specified complexity implies about design.Comment 1: I suspect that a measuring procedure for specified complexity will turn out to present an unsolvable problem. I am inclined to suspect that the concept itself is ill conceived. But perhaps if they attempted to find a measuring procedure they could develop an alternative to specified complexity.Comment 2: Finding the designer will probably be an easier problem. I suggest "follow the money" as a methodology. That is, look for the beneficiary of the design. Moreover, I expect that this investigation will reveal that there are very clear distinctions between designed things and evolved things.

Take the example of a watch. If we were Martians visiting Earth, we could probably find something about its design. We would first see how it is used. Then we would see how it is acquired. We could probably discover that the watch user acquired it at a store. Then we could see where the store acquired it. The trail might be long, but it should lead us back to the designer. That's the "follow the money" approach.If we tried similar methods with a bee hive, or a birds nest, we again should be able to find the designers.Suppose we tried this with the mouse (as a species). It seems to me that all trails would lead back to the mouse species. The only reasonable conclusion would be that it is self-designed. I would see being self-designed as the evidence of something that has evolved.In the case of symbiotic species, you might reach the reasonable conclusion that they were co-designed, which would be evidence of co-evolution.

You seem to be hinting that information carrying capacity implies complexity. But you never actually define complexity, and you certainly do not provide any indication on how to measure it. "Infinitely smaller than a chip" implies size 0. Where is the information in something of size 0? Measured how? Dawkins' own wording will do. I already fail to see any basis for inferring design. We see ordinary biological processes creating new organisms. We don't see a creator doing it, except to the extent that biological processes can be considered creative. Do we? Are you implying that the Divine has been operating my paper shredder? There sure is a lot of complexity in the shreds of paper in its bin.

And why not? It was you who introduced the subtitle "How to Measure Complexity" in Message 18. Were you being deliberately obtuse? The output from the random number generator on my computer is very complex. Are you asserting that there is a very bright person hiding in the computer, and typing in those random numbers? Then you must really believe that there is some sort of intelligent designer typing in those random numbers.

That's an argument against ID. Thus far we have no evidence that an intelligent designer could design a living cell. Perhaps a living cell is the kind of thing that could only arise via evolution.

I think they understood that. The problem is that it is an utterly useless and pointless statement. The problem that you will still be alive tomorrow is LESS than 1 raised to the power of 42.

Based on my understanding of intelligence and design, evolution itself is an intelligent designer.

Our understanding of the word "intention" is too closely tied to human social interactions. Insisting that it is necessary takes a problem out of the realm of science.In the case of "intelligence", there have at least been attempts to separate the concept from our use of it with humans. Psychology has attempted to find objective ways of measuring it, and AI has attempted to emulate it on a machine. If we can have a weak sense of "intention" that is not restricted to humans or animals, and could in principle be applied to other kinds of systems, then it might be appropriate to tie it to notions of "intelligence" and "design".