While I do think that the whole intelligent design thing is total nonsense, I'm still curious if someone thinks there is a way for deciding if something is designed or not (without knowing the designer and the stuff he can make).

Ideas?

I mean I see people make design claims all the time but I have never seen the algorithm by which they decide if something is designed or not. So ITT I couldn't care less about what your particular design claims are, but I'm very interested in that algorithm of yours if you think you got one.

Design is a very hazy concept, and worse is that the term design doesn't really reflect on the properties of the created object but towards the plan that went into its making.

For example; this sequence is a randomly generated sequence of numbers (generated by a true random generator yes, not a pseudo one):

Is it designed because I intended to display it on this page and used a random generator to generate it?

If you say yes to that, then you have already conceded that something that has no discernible pattern (at this time) may still be designed. if you say no to that, then you claim that the nature of the pattern is more important that the designer, but a pattern that is systematic may still be generated randomly, for example if I introduce a random selection pressure to my randomly generated sequences they're going to display trends after a while.

In short I think answering either "yes" or "no" is stupid. If you don't know the creator or his limitations/capabilities and preferably a few other things about him then I don't think going around claiming this and that is designed makes much sense however. You could fit anything to a designer that isn't defined in itself.

So where are the Jib's and NR's with their grand design ideas? Seems like a pretty simple question to ask any design proponent.

I've posted a long quote from Dawkins. Also cf Dembski.

Cross-post or links please.

http://www.designinference.com/docum...a_response.htm

So Dembski is saying God is a lot less smart than previously anticipated? I have to say, even I as an atheist think the comparison to the Detroit car industry is just...cruel.

I honestly cannot see how that link answers my question. If you do, maybe you could answer the question in your words or point out specific paragraphs/sentences.

You have a short memory:

Dembski says the design inference can be made if:

1. Low probability
2. Independent pattern

Snowflakes are iow designed.

What do you mean by probability? Probability of what? And please elaborate on what independent pattern means as well.

Examples of "designs" I'd like you to distinguish using your methods are the wheel, snowflakes, rocks, crystals, an LCD screen.

So?

If something is complex, and we don't know the exact scientific details of its creation--obviously designed.
If science explains it thoroughly--naturally designed, with Divine inspiration.