How does Complexity demonstrate Design

It is not just "complex" that equals design. It is when complexity meets specification that we infer design. And if you don't get it why don't you try reading abouty the subject. Start with Dembski, Behe and Ratszch.

It is when complexity meets specification that we infer design.CF:
Couldn't you just define the specification after you had the complexity?John Paul:
Sure you could. Is that what we currently do now with design specific fields such as archaeology, anthropology's search for artifacts, cryptology, SETI, forensics, etc.?

CF:
Then in that case, isn't it a circular argument? Couldn't you argue any complex object, of whatever origin, met some post-hoc specification, and was therefore of intelligent design?John Paul:
That is why it is called the design inference. Can that inference be refuted/ overturned? Sure. As for post-hoc- wouldn't that be anything, including the ToE, that deals with past events? Seriously I can't tell if something was designed BEFORE it is designed. I can only wait until after and then through thorough study stick to or overturn my initial inference. And if that is circular then there are several investigative venues that stake their reputation on circularity.

Arach:
also, irreducibly complex systems may not have subsystems by his own definition (page 38-39).John Paul:
That is demonstratably false:"Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system. In fact, it would most likely exacerbate the problem, as I stated when considering whether parts lying around a garage could be used to make a mousetrap without intelligent intervention."from:
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions | Discovery InstituteIf Behe is full of crap neither you or anyone else has been able to show that he is. IOW your words are hollow.

sidelined:
In a complex design is the designer not also complex and if we follow the logic of the statement that complexity indicates design to its apparent conclusion how then does the designer escape being designed?John Paul:
First things first. First we have to understand the design. Then with that knowledge we may be able to ascertain some things about the designer(s).
Yours is a good question for philosophy, right along with where did the matter and energy come from that started all we see (aka the "big bang)?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that what we currently do now with design specific fields such as archaeology, anthropology's search for artifacts, cryptology, SETI, forensics, etc.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
How interesting that these fields deal with artifacts that, unlike living organisms, do not reproduce.John Paul:
And why should reproduction be a barrier for detecting design?MrH:
These artifacts require a designer to explain their origin, but living beings owe their existence to a well-understood natural process, the hereditary mechanism of DNA.John Paul:
LoL! Where is the evidence that supports your claim? Even Dobzhansky says that prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.MrH:
For your inference to work, you need to make us believe that natural processes do not create living things, or that intelligent agency is necessary for living things to exist.John Paul:
And for your inference to work you need to show us that natural processes CAN do what you claim. So far no one has. We INFER a designer (ID) from the evidence. That inference can be falsified but as of yet has not been. You on the other hand have no reason to infer nature did what you claim because no where has anyone observed nature bring about specified complexity or information rich systems. IOW all you have is a belief system. ID has the evidence- as in every time an information rich system or specified complexity is produced it is produced as a result of an intelligent agency.MrH:
Intelligent agency has never created a tree, a baby, or a bacterium.John Paul:
And neither has nature. So I guess none of this exists.
If you disagree, please offer evidence to the contrary.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
Intelligent agency has never created a tree, a baby, or a bacterium.
John Paul:
And neither has nature.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
You've got to be kidding me.John Paul:
Why would I be kidding you? I have asked you to provide evidence and you have yet to do so.MrH:
If this is any indication of how thick your blinders are, I give up trying to discuss anything with you.John Paul:
I have given up "discussing" anything with you long ago. You don't want a discussion.MrH:
There has to be some rational basis for how we're trying to establish consensus here, but if you're going to deny that trees grow through natural processes, then I'm done.John Paul:
You were done well before this. I NEVER said, nor implied, that trees don't grow through natural processes. That isn't even what you asked/ posted. This is what YOU posted "Intelligent agency has never created a tree," , which is very different from trees growing naturally.
You can't even stay focused. You have to twist and misrepresent in every post. why is that?This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-11-2004 10:28 AM

sidelined- you don't understand. Knowing the id of the designer is not relevant when detecting design and trying to understand that design. ID is about the design, not the designer. The designer is less important to ID than abiogenesis (the logical conclusion to naturalism and the ToE) is to the ToE. That said, of course people are interested in knowing the designer. However, as I posted earlier, unless the designer is revealed to us all we have is the evidence to piece together what/ who the designer was/ is.

The designer is less important to ID than abiogenesis (the logical conclusion to naturalism and the ToE) is to the ToE.sidelined:
Excuse me for being thick but how exactly do you have intelligent design without the intelligence?John Paul:
You don't. Again you miss the point. I don't need to know the designer of my car to know it was designed and to be able to figure out how it works.sidelined:
Should we not then call it the design theory and remove any misunderstanding that is present?John Paul:
It is called Intelligent Design to differentiate between apparent and optimal design.

It is called Intelligent Design to differentiate between apparent and optimal design.sidelined:
Which one is it,apparent design or optimal design?John Paul:
Neither. Intelligent is used to differentiate between optimal and apparent. Apparent being what Dawkins calls the design in living organisms and optimal being something akin to perfect. Itelligent just means an intelligence, even one acting stupidly, is the cause of the design.

The designer is less important to ID than abiogenesis (the logical conclusion to naturalism and the ToE) is to the ToE.Mark:
That's not true, you can potentially have a ToE without having abiogenesis, but you most certainly can't have design without a designer.John Paul:
A ToE without a purely natural origins of life would be a ToE that is either theistic or ID. My pint is you don't have to know or have any knowledge of the designer in order to detect and study the design.

sidelined:
Then if the intelligence is not necessary to the understanding of the design then just what do you put forth in this theory that seperates it from evolution?John Paul:
Doesn't any evolutionist care to know about what it is they are debating against? The evidence leads to ID that is why ID was put forward.sidelined:
Abiogenesis is at least able to make use of chemistry and physics to show a plausible model that is consistent with the evidence.John Paul:
But there isn't any plausible model that shows life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. However all of our current knowledge shows where there are information rich systems or specified complexity there is always an intelligent agency involved.

TC:
Nothing man has ever designed has been irrucedibly complex. And I do think man would qualify as an "intelligent designer".John Paul:
My computer is IC. Take away the fuse and it doesn't power up. Take away the hard drive and it doesn't work. I could list many man-made inventions that are IC.The 747 took intelligence to put all of the parts together in the right sequence and it took intelligence to create the parts in the first place.TC:
There is one problem with irreducibly complex systems and that is that the only such system that can exist is the one that can't be put together in the first place. (By anything.)John Paul:
I hope you are joking. Rube Goldberg machines are IC and can be put together. Go figure...The only thing dumb is TC's argument.

Below is a dialog between MrH and myself. What I would like to know is what is what it that turns a person to use dishonest tactics such as twisting someone else's words or changing what was said to suit their purpose:MrH:
There has to be some rational basis for how we're trying to establish consensus here, but if you're going to deny that trees grow through natural processes, then I'm done.John Paul:
You were done well before this. I NEVER said, nor implied, that trees don't grow through natural processes. That isn't even what you asked/ posted. This is what YOU posted "Intelligent agency has never created a tree," , which is very different from trees growing naturallyA reply from MrH would be most appreciated.

PK:
You explicitly denied that trees were created by natural processes.John Paul:
Yeah, so what? Can you refute that statement?PK:
Trees are formed through growth (from seeds)John Paul:
Seeds from trees. where did those original trees come from?PK:
Ergo your statement denied that trees grow through natural processes.John Paul:
Only if we follow your faulty logic.PK:
I suggest that you apologise for falsely accusing Mr H of being dishonest.John Paul:
There was/ is nothing false about my accusation. A clear reading of the posts shows he twisted what was posted. I can't help it if you can't comprehend that fact.