Challenge: spot the intelligent design

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

Which of these structures is the product of intelligent design?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

And the tautology begins? Natural crystals…

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

What’s the point of the quiz?

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.

@Eddie

There are always going to be borderline cases where design is apparent but may not be actual

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

@Eddie

he possibility of error in some cases doesn’t mean that design inferences can never be sound.

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

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

There will be borderline cases where there is high probability of design but not so high as to warrant certainty or virtual certainty. I think you know that.

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

@Eddie

Also, the question is ambiguous. For example, if the individual blocks or stones are designed, but the arrangement is not, is the structure to be called designed, partly designed, or not designed?

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

@Eddie

But if you gave me a working machine of some kind, with finely-shaped parts made of materials not known in nature, etc., and evidently all parts working toward some function, it would be much easier to make the design inference. And of course in biological systems, such complex working arrangements of parts are common, and are the main thing at issue in debates over intelligent design.

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

[dcscccc]

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?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

Why wouldn’t there be borderline cases?

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.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@dcscccc

here is my question to you- how you detect design?[/quote]

I look for evidence of independence from natural causation. Biological organisms are not independent of natural causation. God doesn’t magically create animals, they reproduce by themselves. When a cow is born we don’t say God has created a cow, or do we say God designed that particular cow.

[quote=“dcscccc, post:8, topic:4383”]do you think that we can know that a watch for example is a product of design?

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]

@Jonathan_Burke

I look for evidence of independence from natural causation.

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

@Jonathan_Burke

God doesn’t magically create animals, they reproduce by themselves.

we know about robots that also reproduce by themselves:

Home | Cornell Chronicle

so this kind of robot isnt evidence for design?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@dcscccc

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

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

@dcscccc

we know about robots that also reproduce by themselves:

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.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

Why are you using the crystal example? ID folks have many times explained that mere regularity is no guarantee of design, since many regularities can be explained by impersonal natural laws. You’re not going to trick an ID person into reasoning: those crystals have regular shapes, therefore they must be designed. Why don’t you read Dembski’s books? He covers all this sort of thing.

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.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

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.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Which of these structures is the product of intelligent design?

So, @Jonathan_Burke,

which of these structures is the product o intelligent design?

[dcscccc]

@Jonathan_Burke

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

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?

@Jonathan_Burke

But reproduction isn’t evidence for design

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

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

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@gbrooks9

which of these structures is the product o intelligent design?

None of them.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@dcscccc

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?

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

@dcscccc

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

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