If they did that then they, like the archaeologist, would put living or formerly living organisms in the "undesigned" pile, and would cease to be cdesign proponentists.
As I wrote in the very post you're replying to:
When an archaeologist finds a stone tool or a clay pot s/he puts that in the "designed" pile while putting a goat's skull or a tree root into the "natural" pile. But creationists are in need of a different criterion.
So anything that was was not designed by peolpe (with an illustrious history in and known mechanisms of, design) would be labled 'not designed'.
I guess we can all be happy with that.
Edited by Larni, : spelling
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
Archaeologists are not looking for design. They're looking for things that show evidence of having been made or modified by people.
At opposite ends of the spectrum the design argument is simple: you know it when you see it. A belt buckle is designed, a rock isn't. But as you move more toward the middle you reach a large grey area. For example, take these polished pebbles:
Are they from a polishing machine and therefore designed? Or are they from a stream bed and therefore natural?
That's all this thread is asking. You're given this polished pebble. How do you tell whether it was designed? This is the question that people like Spetner, Gitt and Dembski claim to have answered, and all we want is a description of the method that determines whether or not this rock was designed.
Just to throw in my two cents in. Design always means the fantastic complexity of nature. Not rounded stones. Design is where a human being understands that such a complex thing could only of come from complex processes. Design is likely or very reasonably to be seen where complexity of process can't be mere happanchance.
Therefore its reasonable to see design and not see evolutionary etc processes. Then from there take on attempts to deny complex processes and replace them with simple step evolutionism.
Design equals complexity equals complex processes. Sum. God plus his mechanisms.
Design is where a human being understands that such a complex thing could only of come from complex processes. Design is likely or very reasonably to be seen where complexity of process can't be mere happanchance.
Too bad that not a single cdesign proponentist has been able to support either of these claims.
Then from there take on attempts to deny complex processes and replace them with simple step evolutionism.
Everyone. by design i mean the great claim of iD that the universe is easily seen as designed because of its great complexity. Round stones are a trivial operation that only taps into the greater design that includes processes of movement affecting material.
iD is simply demanding that the great complexity mankind has always seen could only come from great processes in nature. They are reasonably too complex for trivial cause and effect without a thinking being involved.
one can not dismiss the obviousness of wonderful complexity as a teaching of a designer. Critics must go a long way to show the universe is not designed.
Well this is a obscure point. ID is a bigger idea for the universe. So processes only exist because of a creator. So forces pushing rocks about are a minor process but within a bigger concept of the universe. In both natural or man made rounded stones it was a special mechanism working upon parent material. Both demonstrate a creator. Natures rocks are from existing processes. These processes show a creator.
According to your line of reasoning, every possible observation would be evidence of a "creator." If your model is equally good at predicting any conceivable outcome, then it's meaningless. The terms "designed" and "not designed" lose any meaning because everything conceivable becomes "designed."
“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers