What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

How about this: designed artefacts are identifiable because they have been shaped to assist a known third part with identifiable influence on the artefact.

Okay, I'll expand (and refine a little, thinking about it)An artefact can be identified as designed if:1. It can be identified as having a purpose or function to a third party
2. That third party influenced the form of the artefact
3. That influence was intentionalSo an object that has no obvious function cannot be described as designed - an amorphous lump of rock is not designed, for example (fails on 1). Whereas as elephant poo could be said to have a function to a dung beatle but the dung beatle is incapable of influencing the elephant poo in any way, so elephant poo is not designed (passes 1, fails 2). Criteria 3 is there to root out symbiosis, and co-evolution - aphids did not design Buchnera, Buchnera did not design aphids.(Oh, and I see I missed the 'y' in party off my previous post, oops)

Why? I think my definition puts them as designed. Do you not?

Can they be said to be intentional?

I think bee colonies design their hives. The hexagonal shape itself isn't but the arrangement is varied according to the environment and needs of the colony.I can't see a sensible reason to think beavers aren't engaged in design.

I would suggest other peoples definitions are minimally useful here. Perhaps you could pick a suitable case - such as the beaver - and explain why you think it is not design.

I'm fairly sure that your ad hoc design includes the absolute majority of objects we'd consider designed through history.

Given that I've already given an explicit set of criteria, I'm confused by your question?

The stabber, the stabbee and the spear maker. Obviously, in many cases two of these parties will be synonymous.

Look, if it makes you happy just substitute designer or whatever. I only put "third party" to account for those cases where the designer is not the one who benefits. I said 'function or purpose' Well, in order to claim that an animal is designed you would need to identify a purpose or function they fulfil for a designer, identify that designer, show that the designer created - or suitably modified - the form of the animal to fulfil that purpose or function and show that this creation was intentional.

Wrong. If you pick a party that didn't design it, then you get an irrelevant conclusion. Gosh, what a thing. No, it's a definition. Look substitute in "bob" if it makes you happy. It's completely irrelevant. Yes, that is, indeed what you need to do.

Indeed, but to show it was designed you'd need to show it. Go on, then, tell us how.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

I don't believe it is possible to show something was not designed. Only to show that it is designed. Tracy Emin's bed is a fine example of why.The elephant poo example is illustrating why the criteria are necessary, not demonstrating proof of non-design. Finally! We get somewhere.It's a good point. Pencils aren't the best example, because they're too familiar to us. How about one of these: I suspect you and I would recognise that as designed. But we don't know it's purpose or function. How did we do that? Well, it's form is recognisable to us, we know that natural processes don't produce objects that look like that and we know that its possible to turn natural raw materials into objects like that.So... can we identify a criteria for design based on materials and methods?

Are beavers not conscious of wanting to make a dam? Are birds not conscious of wanting to make a nest? Is there any way that we can test such a claim?In any case, I did not intend to imply consciousness but it's very difficult to unpick intent and decision making from consciousness to a satisfactory degree.

I'm extremely dubious of claims that conscious processes do anything much. In fact, I suspect all design decisions are actually made by subconscious parts of the brain. I'm pretty sure the majority of human designed objects don't go through such a process either.