What exactly is ID?

Pardon me for jumping in, but I think your Rosetta Stone analogy needs to be rethought: The generalization that it took intelligence to create the stone is true, but you can only stop there by willfully ignoring the remaining evidence that tells us humans created the Rosetta Stone.The Rosetta Stone isn't the only evidence we have. There are hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of other documents and inscriptions in the languages of the Rosetta Stone, many of them including pictures showing humans writing and carving inscriptions on stone. In other words we have lots of corroborating evidence that humans make things like the Rosetta Stone and none that aliens do.An inference that ignores any available evidence is likely to be less precise than one that uses all the evidence. Don't you agree?Likewise, science is the accumulation of evidence and drawing conclusions that best support everything we can find. Sometimes you have to step back from looking at that one little tree and notice that it's part of a mighty forest bigger than you can possibly imagine.

So if the idea that humans made the Rosetta Stone is the best possible inference, then why are you harping on other inferences? If you can ignore evidence in front of you then all things are possible; which is precisely what you are doing. If you think that aliens and monkeys made the Rosetta Stone then go find some evidence...likewise, if you think Bog in his heaven poofed DNA into being then find some evidence. Ignoring the evidence that exists is just willful ignorance. Failing to take inferences as far as evidence allows makes baby Sherlock Holmes cry. Here's a clue for you: stone carving monkeys and aliens are natural forces that can be expected to leave evidence of their presence. Unfortunately when the archeologists dig they don't find monkeys and alien stone-carving lasers. Likewise when researchers look at origin of life issues they have yet to see any evidence of the guy in the sky or a miraculous event. In the absence of supporting evidence an inference is nothing but a WAG. The trouble is that we do have evidence to support human origins of the Rosetta Stone inscriptions and evidence supporting natural origins of life. To infer design we need knowledge of the designer, without it we are only making up stories to tell the other goat herders.

This is the only time I'm going to reply to a list of one-liners. I understand that you've got a lot of people discussing, but I would rather you not respond than fail to engage my arguments again. Do I have to quote the whole thread back at you to address a point? You are saying that the Rosetta Stone shows evidence of being designed, but you seem to be drawing a fuzzy line by saying that it could have been designed by aliens or stone-carving monkeys in order to draw a conclusion that we can identify design without knowledge of a designer.The problem with this argument is that we have massive evidence of exactly who carved the Rosetta Stone. We can even read it to see that it has a purpose. We know all those things not because the Rosetta Stone stands alone, but because detailed study of Egypt has given us the ability to understand the purpose and context of the Stone. We can't just say anyone could have built it without ignoring all that evidence. I don't think I'm going to let you get away with that assertion unless you can provide some sort of evidence that intelligence is not natural. By saying they are non-teleological I understand you to mean they are not related to the design of the ultimate cause or have someway set themselves apart from the chain of ultimate causality. I don't even agree that there is an ultimate cause or design. That's what you're supposed to tell us. Well, you're half-right at least. Care to guess which half? Your evidence for design in DNA is nothing but apologetics. Here's a hint: thought experiments are not evidence. If you have a formula let's see you apply it to some real data and look at the results. I sincerely doubt you'll ever come up with an answer equaling God. We're on a text based message board. If I had the slightest idea that you would fairly evaluate any evidence I showed you I might take the trouble. But no, I'm not going to spoon feed you reality. This thread is about What is ID, not support for abiogenesis. I would think it obvious, but I'll try. A designed object has a purpose which is intended by the designer and the object will more or less fulfill that purpose based on the abilities of the designer. So, I see two ways to identify a design:1: We see direct evidence of the Designer in other ways that are easily linked to the artifact. For instance we find similar artifacts in graves or near paintings depicting the creation or use of the artifact.2: We can clearly identify the purpose for the artifact. I admit that this is potentially tricky. Maybe the artifact looks like something we recognize and still use but without context there's a possibility we are mistaken.In the case of the Rosetta Stone we have both 1 and 2. We could calculate the probability of it being a human artifact vs the remains of aliens through Bayseian Inference, but sadly there's no data on the alien side of the equation.In the case of Intelligent Design there is either an assumption of a Designer outside of the design or there is an assumption of purpose which, as pointed out, is open to interpretation.Selah.

I'd call this a trivial difference, but doesn't it imply one of two alternatives about the designer:
1. The designer designed and built the sun before life
2. The sun pre-existed the design of lifeWhich is it? One implies a universe creating designer; the other worked with conditions that already existed. Does ID offer any evidence either way? In either case isn't it clear that the designer cannot be the same as the god of a literally interpreted bible? Both of these beg the question of limitations to the creator/designers powers or methods. I don't think many creationists will agree that created creatures cannot change, and while nobody can disprove (outrule) supernatural intervention, there is no evidence suggesting that these supernatural limitations exist. If the creator has undefined supernatural powers there is no evidence to suggest that there are limitations on the ability of the creations to change without direct supernatural intervention. The argument works both ways and is therefore meaningless. Even if ID is given the benefit of all possible doubt, it is nothing more than a thought-experiment with no unequivocol evidence supporting it. It is tainted by the religious wing-nuts who tied it into their scheme for mandating religious indoctrination for children in public schools. Since Behe, Dembski and all the rest are closely associated with the people who are running that con-game there is little point in trying to elevate them to the status of pure-science gurus instead of recognizing them for the paid religious hacks they are.If there actually is a real Intelligent Design movement I suggest that they make a clean break with the people whose actions would shame 419 scammers. Strange attractors and Chaos theory are described by mathematical formulae. This is no better than the "ID is explained by quantum mechanics" crowd. If you don't have the math, don't make the claim. I only know a little about chaos theory but I do know that there's no possible way ID can be described by use of attractors.A final question: Is there absolutely any difference between a designer and a creator that's not just symantics?

Does that assumption bring you closer to a model that matches reality or does it just give you more places to hide fuzziness? Thoughts on the nature of the designer(s) are useless without some sort of real evidence of their existence. The Rosetta Stone tells us who ordered the stone and why, we don't assume that the priests who say they caused the stela to be erected did so themselves but that they had a workforce of able stoneworkers available. The other stonework in the area attests to that. The stone doesn't tell us exactly who carved it, so if you wish to make the point that it was created by an unknown designer you can, but we do know certain properties of that designer: the designer was skilled in carving neat text into stone. Sure it would be nice to know the names of the people who actually carved it, but that information is not available. Do you expect us to throw up our hands and say that we can't know anything about the Rosetta Stone because we don't know the name of the stone carver?In comparison with the first section, we have physical evidence that stone carvers worked in Egypt during the period the Rosetta Stone was made. Ptah himself may have brought the stone into existence fully formed, but we have more believable scenarios available. It appears that your idea of an unambiguous natural explanation must rule out the actions of an entity with unrestrained supernatural abilities. How can the actions of such a being be ruled out when we can simply say that the designer chose to do things in a way that left no evidence?I can't see any way to falsify that position. Frankly I don't see the need to falsify a conjecture that has presented no evidence in support and is construed in a manner to make such falsification impossible. The properties and the limitations of the designer are not given, and there is no way to systematically reconcile the properties of the design with those of an ineffable designer. That was not ad hominem, just straight truth. The Wedge Document and the switchover of "Of Pandas and People" from creationist to intelligent design language give direct evidence that ID is nothing more than repackaging of creationism. If there are people who support ID for purely scientific reasons then I would advise them to cut off all contact with those who have shown themselves as liars trying to hide their religious agenda. People will tend to associate you with the company you keep. I didn't say that Chaos theory is simple, but I do know that as system complexity increases the abstraction of the model must also increase or you're left with unworkable equations. The simple reason why is that there is no way to mathematically define whatever we're saying was designed as a dynamical system in terms which can be used to apply appropriate formulae.Remember, I'm not the one making the claim that Chaos Theory has application in supporting ID, you are. It is the responsibility of those who try to make the case to support it, not just pop off a smart-sounding buzzword that few understand as a trick to make people think there's support for your ideas where none exists. A meaningful answer would have been more helpful, especially considering your complaint about engaging the substance of the argument above. Care to try again?

I was pointing out that your arguing that there may possibly be multiple designers is as useful as discussing the resplendence of the millions of rare phoenix feathers in the emperor's cloak. There's no evidence of a cloak and no evidence of a designer; so please provide evidence that any designer(s) exist. It's better to understand a subject before you use it as an example to support your position, but I agree; it's never too late to learn something new. So far I haven't seen as much as a face on a milk cartoon to suggest that there are any actual attempts by anyone to prove a god/designer or similar exists. There's a lot of thinking and talking going on but apparently there's no actual looking because some people don't like what they see when they do. So alert us when something is actually found...until then it's just more commentary on the emperor's new clothes. Look, when you get out of a clown car people are going to assume you're just another clown even if you wear normal shoes, a business suit and display a lack of makeup or nose-wear. If there is a serious ID community then they need to police themselves, reject the liars and frauds and establish a reputation as a serious scientific research community. It's nobody's responsibility but their own. Until they do I'll continue to laugh at all the clowns getting into and out of the clown car.Scholars debate with other scholars. They do not try to mandate that governments force schoolchildren to debate the issue. If you don't think scholars are giving your ideas fair play then join the crowd...it's a tough world. However you might want to look down and check the size of your shoes and those of the people you came in with; clown-shoes are a dead giveaway. The office of Devil's Advocate is appreciated during the canonization process, but less so in honest debate. If you haven't seriously considered your position then please don't attempt to argue it as if you have. Feel free to blow holes in other people's boats, but be fair and let them shoot back at a real one and not a cardboard cutout you use to keep people from laughing at your dinghy. In light of the previous comment I can't imagine you would. As far as the evidence I'd require to believe well I honestly couldn't tell you other than to say it hasn't been reached yet and that doesn't mean to imply that I haven't looked. It's been a disappointment to some people very close to me, so I really don't care what strangers say about it. It's sufficient to say that I would rather disappoint and upset them than tell a lie to them or myself in order to make it feel better. I'd rather see what there is to see instead.

In Detecting Design we've been discussing ways that scientists have detected design in the past with specific regards to lower paleolithic tools. Since Dembski's CSI formula has only been applied once, to the e-coli flagellum and that application was never defended by the author (who specifically rejected all interest in material application of the CSI formula), we have an opportunity for someone who claims to be capable of applying the CSI formula to real things and determine if they are designed.I'd like to invite the people who make claims that Dembski's notions have any ability to apply to reality to come show us how we could use CSI to resolve the eolith problem. There's a researcher in Australia who could use your help.

Dembski's specification also relies on a redundancy which shows just how easy it is to twitch the concept to make it say what you want. A propeller is a device which converts rotary motion into thrust. Rotary is implied in the specification propeller and should be removed from the description.Dembski himself refuses to defend his flagellum argument. He's not interested in "materialistic" applications. I'm sure it has nothing to do with his fear of public ridicule. Better to sit on the sidelines and let the second-stringers get sacked.