Is my rock designed?

We may have something here which may lead to a usable metric. Let's assume that the probability that a specific thing was designed (design probability: DP) is correlated to a suitable combination of:

a) How well it works in an orderly fashion,
b) How much coherent harmony exists among its parts, and/or
c) The degree to which its purpose is verifiable.

Let's call this combination of those three ingredients DP(a,b,c) such that

where 0 stands for impossibility, 1 stands for certainty, and 0.5 would be the probability of a coin flip.

Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed.

Edited by DWIII, : typo-fix

This is precisely what we are asking you to do, "to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose". Why won't you do so?

What prevents you from looking deeper into a single rock? If you cannot adequately handle the simpler cases, how can we trust that you can handle the more complex cases?

You are the one who mentioned "probability", which itself is a well-defined mathematical concept (ranging from 0 = impossible to 1 = certain).

You keep repeating yourself. I had already noted (extracted and paraphrased from one of your uncharacteristically coherent statements) that

quote:

---

... the probability that a specific thing was designed (design probability: DP) is correlated to a suitable combination of:

a) How well it works in an orderly fashion {function},
b) How much coherent harmony exists among its parts {organization}, and/or
c) The degree to which its purpose is verifiable {purpose}.

---

So why are you so afraid to apply these three (presumably measurable) criteria to any specific object?

Sadly, I see essentially no design exhibited in this bizarre section of prose, since it clearly lacks both function and organization. (I can't speak to the alleged purpose, however...)

Actual science does not fear falsifiability.

There are, of course, several different processes which form rock; you may want to refer to Dr Adequate's Introduction To Geology.

With regard to crystalline structure, some geologic processes produce more order (e.g., large uniform crystals such as quartz) than other geologic processes (e.g., amorphous glasses such as obsidian). So, as far as crystalline structure is concerned, do igneous rocks composed of quartz show more evidence of design than igneous rocks composed of obsidian?

Suppose that a given sedimentary rock was produced by the slow orderly accumulation of water-deposited particles over hundreds of thousands of years, producing a very orderly banded appearance. Another sedimentary-type rock laid down over a span of a single year by a chaotic flood-like disaster is less likely to show as much regularity.

The first sedimentary rock exhibits some evidence of design, having been produced by an orderly process. The second sedimentary rock exhibits virtually no evidence of design, having been produced by a disordered lawless supernaturally-caused global flood. Can we conclude, then, that the first sedimentary rock was designed, and the supernaturally-flood-produced sedimentary rock was not designed?

I haven't come to any conclusion yet; I was asking if you yourself believe that a crystal exhibits more order than an amorphous material; yes or no?

But... if you really want my input on this, consider the following:

One possible way to quantify simplicity/order vs complexity/disorder is Kolmogorov complexity; in particular, the length of a description (in a suitable symbolic language) necessary to fully describe the positioning of each atom in a sample. For example, given sufficiently-large sample sizes, specifying the regular lattice (built up of repeated unit cells of silicon atoms and oxygen atoms) of a perfect quartz crystal would take far less data than to specify the individual positions of every one of those same atoms in a disorderly arrangement, such as obsidian.

I have been lurking at EVC for a number of years now, so I am quite familiar with the arguments of many of the cdesignists here. Even so, it's always been quite difficult for me to make heads or tails of most of what you yourself put forth, given that you seem to have a remarkable talent for mixing up and equivocating your chosen set of magic words almost at random(!).

What's there to agree with if you cannot even get your $#@#$%$%@ grammar straight???

Suppose we do find exactly the same "detailed order and purpose" in every single thing produced by every single process? If there are no viable examples of non-design for comparison, or alternatively no conceivable method of measuring the amount of design, how could you then even hope to objectively recognize design in the first place?

Sorry, but "I knows it when I sees it" is just not good enough.

Then, as far as science is concerned, the design argument is essentially worthless, and at best a dead end. Learning the "how" or the "why" (or even possibly the "who") that lies behind any given phenomenon is exactly what science is all about.

Since you (apparently) have been booted from this subforum, I suppose there is no point in continuing.

Then perhaps we have a poor choice of terminology here. If your definition of "design" must include complexity, I suggest we simply call it "cdesign" to help avoid confusion.

Tell me, are mere humans capable of producing full-blown cdesign, as opposed to ordinary run-of-the-mill design?