Organization of diverse components towards a purpose or specific goal indicates ID.
Great! Now we're getting somewhere...
First of all, I have an issue with the bolded part. That seems like a loaded term. It implies "intention", while that is exactly the thing that needs to be determined here.
So instead, let's swap that word with mere "function".
Let's put that definition to the test, shall we?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that you took no issue with the idea of "adaption" to an environment, correct?
Let's take the example of bears and polar bears.
You agree that a polar bear's white fur is the result of adaption to a white background for hunting purposes, yes?
So, the
function of white fur in the polar bear would be better camouflage while hunting, correct?
But wait, this was the result of a natural process....
It seems that your definition thus does not hold up, as written.
So, what is missing?
That’s how you reach the conclusion that a water pump is designed.
No, actually. I reach the conclusion that a water pump is designed, not by what it does, but by what it looks like and the materials it is made from.
That is the same reason why we reach the same conclusion about the heart.
But apparantly, the same can not be said about the "purpose" / "function" of white fur in a polar bear..........
All the parts of the heart are specifically designed to pump deoxygenated blood to the lungs where it is oxygenated and distributed to the rest of the body in order to oxygenate the cells. It is circulatory in order to assure a continuous oxygenation. The veins have valves which prevent backflow. In short, it is a machine and a machine demands we conclude ID just as we would do with another system which displays organization of individual parts towards a purpose.
Equivocation error.
You speak of testing? We determine ID because it passes the TEST of logic which employs inductive reasoning leading to a justifiable inductive leap.
Except that
the exact same logic doesn't work for the white fur of the polar bear......
So it isn't accepted blindly or thoughtlessly-it is evaluated and tested
I'm not seeing any test...... I'm seeing a mere claim.
I'm seeing you simply
claim that the heart is a machine that was manufactured.
You haven't given us anything here by which it can be verified if this is actually the case.
And in fact, if we apply your method to something else, like the white fur of bears, then suddenly it doesn't work anymore. So clearly your method needs a little work.
There is really no logically justifiable reason to routinely accept that criteria for everything else and then to the suddenly and inconsistently quibble when the criteria is met in nature.
You mean like... with the white fur of polar bears?
Now comes the responses of "Ï caint see!""
Nope. The actual response is: your method as explained here, doesn't work.