Design and the intelligence hypothesis

That is because your claim is just not true. It can be demonstrated in computer models that you can get complexity via random variation, simple rules, and a filter of selection.YOU seem to are unable to get beyond the concept that most things that are designed by people do not have a very specific attribute to them. That is, they are not self reproducing , self catalysing chemical reactions. When you have that, plus the filter of natural selection, you have complexity being formed.You don't need a designer for that.

That is your assumption. Now, design an experiment that tests this assumption. Give me a testable statement , that if proven true, falsifies that assumption.What you are doing is the logical fallacy of 'personal incredibilty'. Frankly, it is just an excuse to say 'See, there is a god.' I don't buy
your premise. The problem with your premise is that you are making what is known as a 'special pleding' for god. Why is there a god rather than nothing?

You have made that assertion. Repeatedly. Without evidence. Do you have any evidence for this besides the 'I can't understand how it could happen naturaly, so it must be a designer' logical fallacy?

quote:

---

That's not the argument. Things that appear designed most likely are. There are cases of things appearing designed but were not apparently, but forensic science is the study of design.

​

The universe does exhibit design. That's a fact. The question is where does the design come from, and to what degree or in what way are things "designed."

---

We have shown mechaisms where non-purposeful execution of rules can give forth complexity. This is a repeatable process. It can be demonstrated.You make the assertion that the universe exihibits design. THat is an assertion. Show me a method to test this. If you can't, then you are just blowing smoke out your ear. SHow me a way this can be falsified.
Until you can, you are just making faith statements.