MrID writes:
How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”? Will you answer, “The created X is complex or irreducibly complex and the un-created X is simple or reducibly complex?”.
Neither.
I have never argued as a person that properly understands ID, either "complexity" nor, "irreducible complexity".
I argue all the features of intelligent design.
I would argue specified-complexity, not merely complexity. Complexity is a pile of rubble but this; "yufuftufhghdrt" is a low amount of specified complexity or "arranged" complexity because it contains syntax, it contains code.
"But this" is a high level of specified complexity because it contains code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
So how can I differentiate between a created object and an uncreated object? Do I have to answer according to your limited choice or can I just give my answer?
I would say that you can't differentiate unless the specified complexity is high enough to rule out a non-intelligent designer.
For example if a tree falls over a stream that might enable you to use it as a bridge to cross. Was it created or uncreated? The answer is that you can't determine which one because the wind could have blown it over or someone could have done it deliberately.
However if you drastically increase the specified complexity, and you also have other features of I.D such as contingency planning, correct materials, etc....then if you find a bridge with arches and made from lasting materials with detailed patterns and rails and so forth then you can determine it is created because it is impossible to create something sophisticated without it having all of the intelligent input required by the designer.
The more challenging something is to design, the more intelligent the level of input needs to be, so the reasonable evidence of high intelligent design is the evidence of that intelligent input in the form of the features of ID being not only overtly present but of a very intelligent nature, or the "epitome" of all of those features.
-specified complexity
- contingency planning
-correct materials
-goals and subgoals
-function
-clever solutions to inherent problems with that design. (so for example, a differential to solve the inherent problem of wheelspin in a car, or the Mueller cells in the camera eye to solve the nerve-net problem of the receptors receiving light through it)
- aesthetics (but not necessarily)
- congruent integration of systems, symbiotically (so to speak). ---(for example, hearing and sight can work together, there are many systems integrated into one system such as nervous system, circulatory system, etc..)
As for irreducibly complexity, that's only one feature of design and for me the problem with that one is that it only applies SOMETIMES it seems. But certainly I would say there is an element of design where you can't reduce a system any more without it becoming untenable as a design. I try to stay away from that feature of design because it's the famous one and it gets caught up with evolution-theory too much. There is some truth to it but mostly it seems like an unimportant feature in that it doesn't necessarily prove anything.
™ Version 4.2