Bluejay writes:
All that need be considered is the number of designers requisite to explain the evidence of design.
Without the consideration of population sizes, to the best of my ability, here are the types of evidence that are required to support the hypotheses of different numbers of designers:
- For "at least 1 designer": evidence of design
- For "at least 2 designers": (i) evidence of design, plus (ii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A from the work of Designer B
- For "at least 3 designers": (i) evidence of design, (ii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A form the work of Designer B; plus (iii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer B from the work of Designer C; plus (iv) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A from the work of Designer C
(This is, of course, ruling out the possibility of directly observing the designers at work.)
Without considering the actual evidence yet, I would conclude that, in principle, one designer is more parsimonious than two designers.
Bluejay is on the right track here. If you want to establish unity or multiplicity of source with regards to the making of a particular thing, you look for patterns in the product and for identifiable differences in style. Texual analysis can determine that there was more than one author of Genesis, more than one author of the Illiad, and can pretty accurately determine which plays of Shakespeare's were written by him and which are spurious. So the question is really: can you determine whether or not the universe displays a unity of style in creation?
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill
™ Version 4.2
