Challenge: spot the intelligent design


(Jon) #1

Which of these structures is the product of intelligent design?


(George Brooks) #2

And the tautology begins? Natural crystals…


#3

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Jon) #4

To see how easy or difficult it is to detect intelligent design. Just like I said. There’s nothing “gotcha” about this. Any ID proponent with a reliable method of differentiating intelligent design from “not intelligent design” will be delighted to demonstrate how effective their method is. This is a great opportunity to demonstrate the scientific rigor of the ID case.

How many of the cases in the images you see here are “borderline cases”? Why are there “borderline cases”?

I agree. In this case I’m interested in the extent of success, not the possibility of error.


#5

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Jon) #6

That doesn’t answer the question of why there are borderline cases.

A robust ID model will be able to differentiate between the two. This is a great opportunity for ID.

How many biological systems are made of materials not known in nature?


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Dcscccc) #8

hey jonathan,

here is my question to you- how you detect design? do you think that we can know that a watch for example is a product of design?


(Jon) #9

Ok that doesn’t answer the question. Nor does pointing to “borderline cases” in other areas.

[quote=“Eddie, post:7, topic:4383”]
A robust ID model is still in development…[/quote]

Let me know when they finally have something worth looking at. Meanwhile, over 100 years of evolutionary biology is going strong, and has produced a pile of verifiable results.


(Jon) #10

Yes. I am not opposed to the idea that we can detect intelligent design, and I don’t think it’s unscientific to do so.


(Dcscccc) #11

so if you will find a watch that evolve before yours eyes, you will conclude that this watch isnt evidence for design?

we know about robots that also reproduce by themselves:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/05/researchers-build-robot-can-reproduce

so this kind of robot isnt evidence for design?


(Jon) #12

What do you mean a watch that evolves before my eyes?

Yes. But reproduction isn’t evidence for design. I already made this point. When robot A produces robot B, we don’t say robot B was designed.


(George Brooks) #13

I wasn’t trying to trick an ID person. I was trying to point to the tautology of some ID logic. They point to a pristine or complex natural geometry … and say it LOOKS Designed. Geometric arguments like these are inherently tautological.


#14

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(George Brooks) #15

Eddie,

I await Jonathan Burke’s explanation for his images…

As usual, Eddie, your position is merely a reflexive assertion that whatever I say has no relevancy.


(George Brooks) #16

So, @Jonathan_Burke,

which of these structures is the product o intelligent design?


(Dcscccc) #17

a watch that develop like a flower or something. if you will see such a case you will think that its a product of design or natural process?

ok. and what about a spining motor like this one?:

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html


(Jon) #18

None of them.


(Jon) #19

See my previous post; I look for evidence of independence from natural causation, and biological organisms are not independent of natural causation.

It’s a biological organism, so it’s not independent of natural causation. See here.


#20

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.