WHAT ARE ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA?

Jib must have me on ignore, but if someone else knows what his criteria are - please illuminate.

Are there other universes to compare to? Applying what we know can only get us so far in this case.

I missed your snowflake statement, if you made one - which criteria does it not fulfill?

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Forgive my ignorance but wikipedia didn't help me. Do IDers think that everything is designed? Or only some things? Is everything designed but only some things look like their designed? If only some things, how does that work, most stuff is pure chance and God just fiddles occasionally for the really important stuff?

Serious question, trying to understand the hypothesis.

Because we have no prior experience of universes, 'prior experience' being a huge part of the process I laid out.

We do not need another universe to compare to. If the universe operates in the same manner as things that we know to be designed then I do not see why the extrapolation is unjustified to make the conclusions necessary. Now there is more to it, but that is I would say a basis.

specified complexity would be one. At this point I am not even arguing the merits of the criteria, but that certain criteria can and does exist. And that we use this criteria in many fields

It is not that ID'ers say everything must be designed as much as they say certain things cannot be explained without intelligent design.

I'm talking to myself here, but does the wheel satisfy the appropriate design criteria? Or do carbon nanotubes? It's really hard for me to tell given that these criteria have not been outlined.

What are some things that we know to be designed about which the universe can be said to operate in the same manner?

I think there is some denial and illogical claims being made in this conversation, but even if those problems were cleared up, I don't think the "design" side can ever win this argument. There is no precise definition, no mathematical equation, for design.

Human beings can design things, but so can a river. I'm not convinced that "designed by an intelligent being" is an attribute that a universe (or anything) can have or not have, in any meaningful way. It just doesn't make sense.

We are trying to discuss the universe as a whole, while at least one party to the conversation seems to assume that the entire universe must behave and similarly to apples and cars, despite the vastly different energy levels which human beings are unable to observe; as if studying marbles can give you insights into the nature of bags. Or studying the ocean bottom can give you insights into the nature of the surface of the sun. Except, you know, those analogies are incredibly weak compared to the difference between stuff we know and the universe itself.

I thought ID was supposed to be a more scientific approach to the ontological arguement. I would think that design should be widespread, no? If not, and its only a few things, then how is it at all helpful as a method of explaining anything? If the exceptions massively outweigh the rule, the rule will be of very little use.

What? It's not a difficult question, it's completely clear from the context of our conversation I'm asking you to explain this in greater detail and maybe mention said criteria in the reasoning for why you don't think the snowflake looks designed.

I am not being unreasonable, rude, rhetorical or employing any other impolite debating tactic.

No, as I understand ID, it is not even trying to be scientific. If only one thing cannot be explained by natural processes and therefore must be the product of intelligent design - then that in turn proves the existence of an intelligent designer. Now getting from the intelligent designer to God - for that you're on your own.

Is that really true? This seems weak, even for religious standards.

No it is not true at all. they most certainly attempt to be scientific and you can refer to people like Dembski to get a better understanding.

Um, I don't think anyone should refer to Dembski on this manner:

"The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complexity theory, or biology."

"A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results".[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance."

Jib, why do you keep using people who have no credibility to back up your points? This is extremely annoying.

Yes, the IDers themselves may believe they are doing science - though it seems more likely they are calling what they do science to get it into classrooms. But the broad consensus remains that ID is not science.

Are you also saying that IDers would not infer an intelligent designer from a single instance of intelligent design? Or that their core goal is not religious?

Perhaps you could briefly explain the ID hypothesis/theory to me.

this is intelligent design:

non-IDer: hey, why does the sky look blue?

ID-er: god did it.

non-IDer: ok, well i'm gonna go run some tests and find out just how it happens.

IDer: k.

(an amount of time passes)

non-IDer: hey i just found out how! it's actually because the atmosphere reflects the blue pigment from sunlight.

ID-er: ok, well god did that then

FYP

lol yeah i knew it wasn't quite right but i didn't care enough to look it up

I bothered reading the braincell-pacifier that is Dembski's theory and from what I can gather the snowflake (and most things) can be seen as specifiedly complex or not. The thing makes absolutely no sense.

The information argument is...well...uncannily bad. And the letter/sentence information argument as differences between complexity is horrid. A letter can carry more information than a sentence, but a sentence is less likely to form by random chance - and he still uses these "sizes" interchangably!

bump