Call for Submissions

[essentialsaltes]

* Though there is currently no accepted measure, do you accept intelligence as a thing?

It's not a thing the way that granite or water is a thing. But I know what you mean.

* If science has no accepted measure of intelligence, yet it is a thing, doesn't this mean science is not accounting for the causal effects of intelligence - wolves, people, and otherwise? Or are they implicitly including these effects via indirect routes?

Probably indirectly. I believe that if you had some sort of super scanner you could analyze someone solving a Rubik's cube or composing a sonnet on pen and paper and be able to attribute all the muscular motions, etc. to a complex set of brain activity. Everything would be fully explained and causal, without the need to invoke 'intelligence' as some additional 'thing' that 'did' something.

Seen at a different level, we might say "Sure it takes some ability and some training and practice to learn to do these things. Being a person, and with some human chauvinism, I know it takes intelligence to do these things. However, if I saw an animal or a robot doing these things, I might not attribute the results to 'intelligence'. Since I don't know what it's like to be a bat, or a robot. Maybe it's only a simulacrum of intelligence."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life.

That 'law' was formulated in response to the failure of the concept of 'spontaneous generation'. It just means that complete organisms (e.g. flies, maggots) don't arise spontaneously from dead matter.

The general theory of evolution requires the violation of this scientific law at some point in the distant past.

No, the theory of evolution explains how life evolves and diversifies. It has nothing to say about where life comes from. The 'law of biogenesis' isn't a scientific law, it's a refutation of spontaneous generation.

Many evolutionist websites, in keeping consistent with their beliefs on origins, teach abiogenesis (the opposite of biogenesis) as occurring at least once in the history of the universe, although such has never been observed.

Abiogenesis is the concept of life first arising from organic chemical precursors. It's not the same thing as spontaneous generation. There is some evidence that it occurred on the early Earth (not least the appearance of life itself!) and considerable (surprising, even) progress has been made with a number of hypotheses for how this could have occurred.

Remember that even the simplest contemporary organisms are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution, so we should not expect anything as sophisticated as that.

 

[J_B_]

But I'm with Feynman on such things - as he said in his 'ode to a flower', I don't think understanding the science behind something detracts from its aesthetic or emotional appeal. YMMV.

That isn't what I meant. I'm not worried about science tainting the idea of love. My point was that sometimes science appropriates a word and changes it into something it can measure such that it no longer represents the original concept. That's not going to help me with the original concept.

IIRC, behavioural science takes account of more or less sophisticated behaviours using a variety of empirical measures; you don't need a single, abstract, universal measure to compare behaviours.

Probably indirectly. I believe that if you had some sort of super scanner you could analyze someone solving a Rubik's cube or composing a sonnet on pen and paper and be able to attribute all the muscular motions, etc. to a complex set of brain activity. Everything would be fully explained and causal, without the need to invoke 'intelligence' as some additional 'thing' that 'did' something.

It seems both of you, though not making a strong statement that intelligence can't or shouldn't be measured, think (in the absence of such a measurement) we need not invoke intelligence and can proceed by other means.

So let's try another example. A farmer wishes to increase the yield in his apple orchard. If he doesn't harvest them quickly enough, they fall to the ground and rot. Therefore, to increase his yield, he wants to reduce the number of apples that fall to the ground. He lists causes he has observed. Further, he excludes the case where the apple rots on the tree before it falls, only considering causes where good apples fall:
1. Wind shakes the tree, breaking the stem
2. A squirrel runs along a branch, shaking it so the stem breaks
3. A squirrel bites the stem, cutting the apple loose
4. A mischievous kid cuts the apple stems so the apple falls

The farmer wants to know the breakdown of the causes to determine if he must solve all three problems, two, or just one. Simply because of what this thread is about, I'm excluding the solution where you set up cameras and watch. The problem must be solved by studying apples, wind, squirrels, and mischievous kids.

It seems to me 1. & 2. will be very difficult to distinguish, and the same for 3. & 4.

It becomes the problem Isaac Asimov addressed in his Foundation Series: it may be possible to characterize what people do, but it is nearly impossible to characterize what a specific person will do.

Or, similarly, it's easy to predict that somewhere in a DNA chain a mutation will happen, but it's nearly impossible to predict it will happen at a specific location.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Or, similarly, it's easy to predict that somewhere in a DNA chain a mutation will happen, but it's nearly impossible to predict it will happen at a specific location.

If someone were to claim that God sends or preordains cosmic rays (or whatever) to cause mutations to enact his will, I doubt there would be any way to falsify it. Nor any particular reason to believe it. This would be tantamount to theistic evolution, and probably is essentially believed by at least a billion people on the planet.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That isn't what I meant. I'm not worried about science tainting the idea of love. My point was that sometimes science appropriates a word and changes it into something it can measure such that it no longer represents the original concept. That's not going to help me with the original concept.

The meaning of words is in their usage in specific contexts. Scientists may define or use a word in a specific way for their research interest. Typically, it will be some particular aspect of a word that has a broader general meaning. So your preferred meaning or interpretation may not be relevant to the research they're pursuing.

I'm really not seeing your problem here - an example would help; which scientific studies appropriated 'love', or any other word, and changed it to something measurable that no longer represents the original concept?

What help do you want with the original concept? what is the original concept?

It seems both of you, though not making a strong statement that intelligence can't or shouldn't be measured, think (in the absence of such a measurement) we need not invoke intelligence and can proceed by other means.

As I said, I don't think there's a problem with using the word, as long as it is clearly defined for the relevant context.

So let's try another example. A farmer wishes to increase the yield in his apple orchard. If he doesn't harvest them quickly enough, they fall to the ground and rot. Therefore, to increase his yield, he wants to reduce the number of apples that fall to the ground. He lists causes he has observed. Further, he excludes the case where the apple rots on the tree before it falls, only considering causes where good apples fall:
1. Wind shakes the tree, breaking the stem
2. A squirrel runs along a branch, shaking it so the stem breaks
3. A squirrel bites the stem, cutting the apple loose
4. A mischievous kid cuts the apple stems so the apple falls

The farmer wants to know the breakdown of the causes to determine if he must solve all three problems, two, or just one. Simply because of what this thread is about, I'm excluding the solution where you set up cameras and watch. The problem must be solved by studying apples, wind, squirrels, and mischievous kids.

It seems to me 1. & 2. will be very difficult to distinguish, and the same for 3. & 4.

Well, yes, if you don't observe the activity it will be hard to distinguish between causes with similar effects. But it's possible that close examination of the results may reveal differences; for example, the wind may shake the tree from side to side and the squirrel may shake the branch up and down which may cause a different kind of breakage, or squirrel teeth may leave marks distinguishable from a knife cut, etc.

It becomes the problem Isaac Asimov addressed in his Foundation Series: it may be possible to characterize what people do, but it is nearly impossible to characterize what a specific person will do.

Or, similarly, it's easy to predict that somewhere in a DNA chain a mutation will happen, but it's nearly impossible to predict it will happen at a specific location.

Well, yes, as some wag once said, "it's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future".

I'm not sure where you're going with this - do you have a point?

 

[J_B_]

If someone were to claim that God sends or preordains cosmic rays (or whatever) to cause mutations to enact his will, I doubt there would be any way to falsify it. Nor any particular reason to believe it.

Both true to a certain extent. But per my sidebar at the end of post #37, I think one's outlook must allow a possibility before it can be detected - a very Augustinian view of things.

The meaning of words is in their usage in specific contexts.

Fair enough, though it seems you never grasp my context. Every time we've spoken the same question comes to my mind, but it's never relevant to the discussion so I've never mentioned it.

Well, yes, if you don't observe the activity it will be hard to distinguish between causes with similar effects.

I'm not sure where you're going with this - do you have a point?

It's been the same since the OP. I'm asking for a method to investigate effects caused by intelligent beings. Though now that we've side-stepped use of the term 'intelligent', we may need a different descriptor.

Science makes predictions all the time, so I don't think that's the issue. Could it be science isn't suited to making this kind of prediction? Would historical or legal methods work better? The discussion has come to the point of discussing specific persons. So, when we discuss TR's use of the Sherman Antitrust Act, we don't expect science to prove it was TR who did it, but rather historical methods.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... it seems you never grasp my context. Every time we've spoken the same question comes to my mind, but it's never relevant to the discussion so I've never mentioned it.

Perhaps you need to make your context clearer...

I'm asking for a method to investigate effects caused by intelligent beings. Though now that we've side-stepped use of the term 'intelligent', we may need a different descriptor.

'Intelligent' is fine if you mean the colloquial usage. But what effects? what intelligent beings? What, specifically, is the hypothesis?

Science makes predictions all the time, so I don't think that's the issue. Could it be science isn't suited to making this kind of prediction?

What prediction are you talking about? Science makes predictions based on hypotheses or theories, which it tests to support or falsify the hypothesis or theory.

 

[J_B_]

Perhaps you need to make your context clearer...

Possibly, but the question that keeps coming to mind is: Why do you talk to me if that's the case?

I've run through the scenarios and I can't figure it out, so I must be missing something. First of all, I sometimes wonder if you don't remember you've talked to me before. It sometimes seems that way. If so, it means I'm starting over each time - not a promising scenario. If you do remember, then why do you continue to talk to someone who has never presented you a clear context? It seems nothing but an exercise in frustration. Again, not promising. But maybe you're an eternal optimist. If so, why do you never convey that optimism to me - some kind of 'let's work through this together, I'm sure we'll get there' tone? I've not seen that. It doesn't seem a likely scenario. Or maybe when you're losing ground your tactic is to to accuse your opponent of being unclear to save face. That's not good. That leaves some kind of triumphalism where you specifically pick me for a conversation because you feel you always win and you like that feeling. Again, not promising, but in all honesty, I don't believe that one either.

So, enlighten me.

 

[setst777]

None of that is relevant to your statement about "The definition of true evolution". There is no such definition. The most general definition of evolution is, "... change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms.

Species is not a well-defined scientific concept, it is a way to distinguish populations that have evolved to be sufficiently different to justify being treated separately; there is no clear dividing line, it's a judgement call. There are numerous examples of speciation observed both in the lab and in the wild.


I didn't say anything about adaptation, but there certainly are evolutionary adaptations (and non-evolutionary adaptations).

I agree that (with very few exceptions) no creature produces offspring of a different species. But evolution happens to populations, not individuals. The heritable variations of many individuals accumulate in the population, changing its composition over generations. In this way, isolated populations of the same species become increasingly different from each other and from the original population. At some point, they may be considered subspecies and eventually new species.

Evolutionary theory doesn't demand that lower life forms evolve into higher life forms or that simple life forms evolve into complex or sophisticated life forms, but predicts that populations will change over generations. The vast majority of life on Earth is relatively simple; complexity and sophistication come with significant trade-offs, but where increasing complexity or sophistication gives an advantage, it will tend to increase - if suitable variations appear in the population.

As long as you believe that "Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms" then you agree that all things produce after their own kind, which is the creationist view.

Everything produces after its own kind. God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment.

For instance, just like all other creatures of a species, we have humans with different skin colors and body characteristics. This was so, even in Genesis. No to humans were ever identical.

If you want to call that evolution with your definition that states:

"Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms"

Then I agree.

Blessings.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Possibly, but the question that keeps coming to mind is: Why do you talk to me if that's the case?

Maybe because I don't know when I respond to you that I haven't grasped the context you had in mind. You ask a question, I answer, and you say I never seem to grasp the context you had in mind. So be more explicit - explain what the context is.

I've run through the scenarios and I can't figure it out, so I must be missing something. First of all, I sometimes wonder if you don't remember you've talked to me before. It sometimes seems that way. If so, it means I'm starting over each time - not a promising scenario. If you do remember, then why do you continue to talk to someone who has never presented you a clear context? It seems nothing but an exercise in frustration. Again, not promising. But maybe you're an eternal optimist. If so, why do you never convey that optimism to me - some kind of 'let's work through this together, I'm sure we'll get there' tone? I've not seen that. It doesn't seem a likely scenario. Or maybe when you're losing ground your tactic is to to accuse your opponent of being unclear to save face. That's not good. That leaves some kind of triumphalism where you specifically pick me for a conversation because you feel you always win and you like that feeling. Again, not promising, but in all honesty, I don't believe that one either.

So, enlighten me.

In the OP you asked for alternative approaches to creation from those that reject creationist science. I gave the two theoretically possible versions of creation I know of, neither of which I think are testable.

You replied saying you expected that kind of answer, and asked if I consider that you wanted "something different than the typical creationist approach". I don't know what you mean by that - the examples I gave are not the typical creationist approach.

Then, presumably by way of explanation, you posed an apparently impossible question on population genetics with sheep and wolves, which I tried to explain wasn't possible. You said I could adjust it or give a different one - but you never explained what you were trying to show with it.

Next, you started talking about assessing and measuring intelligence, so I gave you my views on that.

Then you started talking about problems of distinguishing between causes with similar effects, followed by a statement about the difficulty of predicting specific events...

I responded to each of these apparently unconnected topics as best I could, but when I told you I didn't know where you were going with the discussion, you seemed surprised.

Well, I'm not a mind-reader, I just respond to what is posted if I think I can contribute. I don't know what you mean by, "maybe when you're losing ground your tactic is to to accuse your opponent of being unclear to save face. That's not good. That leaves some kind of triumphalism where you specifically pick me for a conversation because you feel you always win and you like that feeling". We haven't been arguing over anything, so in what sense could I be 'losing ground' by discussing the above topics? Equally, in what sense can I be 'winning'? I just don't see where you're going with this discussion - so I said as much ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I answered the OP to give my view of the question, and I've patiently responded to the disparate scenarios and musings that followed, wondering if they might be connected in some way, or maybe just a meandering discussion.

I don't know, you tell me...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As long as you believe that "Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms" then you agree that all things produce after their own kind, which is the creationist view.

I think that's a non-sequitur, but I already explained that no individual of one species naturally produces offspring of a different species. It's not controversial. Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve.

For instance, just like all other creatures of a species, we have humans with different skin colors and body characteristics. This was so, even in Genesis. No to humans were ever identical.

Well, apart from identical twins... but yes, apart from identical twins and clones, offspring vary. Evolution is the process by which the variations that are inheritable and not disadvantageous tend to spread through the population over generations, gradually changing it.

If you want to call that evolution with your definition that states:

"Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms"

Then I agree.

Great.

 

[tas8831]

I appreciate your reply. I expected many would react as you have.

Oh, well, you must be an oracle of some sort. Kind of like me when I create a thread asking for evidence FOR creation. Without exception, if creationists respond at all, their responses are generally of 2 basic sorts: 1. to ask for evidence for evolution (which they reject out of hand when presented with some), or 2. bible verses. And I predict those responses every time. Haven't been wrong yet.

As I said, if it's not a valid question, I don't expect an answer.

It is not a valid question.
It is your white whale, I presume.

However, given I also indicated in the OP I was aware I would get these objections, would you be willing to consider that maybe I'm asking for something different than the typical creationist approach?

No. Seems more like you are fishing for validation. Of what, I cannot tell.

The problem is, I don't want to give you an answer. I want to see how you would do it.

IOW you have no answer. Sometimes, there are no real answers for questions. That does not impugn those being asked them. It seems to me that if there was a valid scientific model of creation, that the hundreds of creation scientists/IDcreationists supposedly working on such things (but they really aren't, are they?) would have come up with something by now.
There was a group that tried this, in a fashion - the Baraminology Study Group (now defunct, of course). Their model was basically that evolution as put forth by evolutionary biologists happens, up to the point at which it looks like higher-level macroevolution patterns are being formed. Then it just stops somehow - can't have reality negate Genesis.

Still, to get things rolling, maybe I could suggest something that might get you thinking.

Oh goody! Thanks, dad...

This is intentionally an overly simplistic example because I don't want to influence too much what you might produce.

Heaven forbid...

Here we go ...

Suppose we have a population of sheep. Some sheep have black spots on their coats, some don't. The related alleles affect nothing but the color of their coats.

So they are neutral. OK.

Further, left to themselves, the population would contain approximately 50% with spots and 50% without.

However, these sheep live among wolves. This particular population of wolves has an interesting characteristic.*snip dopey attempt at humor? I guess?*

Further, the wolves prefer spotted coats. In the presence of these wolves, the population mix is now 40% with spotted coats, 60% without. The allele frequency has changed, even though no DNA mutation has occurred.

Where do you suggest the multiple alleles came from in the fist place? Jesus? What is the evidence for that? See, this is where creationism fails (well, one of the many , many points at which it fails).
We have evidence for the creation of alleles via mutation. Pretty standard stuff. No need to posit extra assumptions. Parsimony and all that.

The sheep continue to give birth with a 50/50 frequency, so if the wolf presence were removed, the population would return to a 50/50 coat distribution.

If the population was 60/40, please explain how each new birth is 50/50.

Is the change in allele frequency evolution? (That's a side question, but I'd be curious to hear your answer).

You just described natural selection (if we remove the unnecessary baggage, at least), which is part of evolution. If the selection pressure (the wolf predation) was continual, over time it could be the case that with linkage and all that (which I am sure I won't have to explain to an expert such as yourself) that alleles affecting reproductive behavior/physiology could produce sufficient change in subpopulations to result in reproductive isolation.
But you knew that.

One last detail. No one has ever observed these creative wolves hunting sheep. They've only been observed hunting mice. The prevailing opinion is that they only take the coats to decorate their dens after the sheep have died of natural causes (e.g. old age). You, however, want to investigate whether these intelligent wolves are the cause of the shift from a 50/50 population to a 40/60 population.

Now the main question. How would you go about this investigation?

I would realize that this is a scam intended to make it look like a non-natural entity was involved and dismiss it as a hoax. I do hope that you do not think this was at all clever? Look, I get it - you are a smarter-than-average creationist, but still a creationist, and you are desperate to have your ingrained beliefs rationalized/justified, yet you realize that your side, despite decades of trying, has been unable to come up with anything other than whining from the sidelines.
I also note that you cannot present any reality-based or evidence-based puzzles to work from and instead are compelled to invent a silly scenario.

Next.

 

[tas8831]

As long as you believe that "Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms" then you agree that all things produce after their own kind, which is the creationist view.

That makes zero sense.

Everything produces after its own kind. God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment.

OK - go HERE, and find some examples. Should be pretty easy for you.

For instance, just like all other creatures of a species, we have humans with different skin colors and body characteristics. This was so, even in Genesis. No to humans were ever identical.

Chapter and Verse please. Were Adam and Eve "identical"?
By the way - if you are positing that 'species' = 'kind', then you sunk your ark.

 

[tas8831]

Seen at a different level, we might say "Sure it takes some ability and some training and practice to learn to do these things. Being a person, and with some human chauvinism, I know it takes intelligence to do these things. However, if I saw an animal or a robot doing these things, I might not attribute the results to 'intelligence'. Since I don't know what it's like to be a bat, or a robot. Maybe it's only a simulacrum of intelligence."

That is exactly what the human chauvinists claim. I have seen such assertions made on this very forum, and by 'professional' creationists. They will only recognize 'intelligence' if it does what they expect it to do - in humans. And then declare that their deity has no more capabilities, intellectually, than they do, for it must re-use designs, make mistakes (though they claim that they are not really mistakes, of course)...

 

[setst777]

Greetings.

setst777 said: ↑
As long as you believe that "Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms" then you agree that all things produce after their own kind, which is the creationist view.

That makes zero sense.

If evolution has no concept of higher life forms, then evolution only means that all living things continue to reproduce after their own kind – not into higher life forms from more simple life forms, even though they have the ability to adapt, making variations of that kind – species, as in adaptation. That is all in line with creationism.

setst777 said: ↑
Everything produces after its own kind. God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment.

OK - go HERE, and find some examples. Should be pretty easy for you.

??? I see no examples of a kind, or some from that kind, turning into a different kind of creature.

setst777 said: ↑
For instance, just like all other creatures of a species, we have humans with different skin colors and body characteristics. This was so, even in Genesis. No to humans were ever identical.

Chapter and Verse please. Were Adam and Eve "identical"?
By the way - if you are positing that 'species' = 'kind', then you sunk your ark.

Adam was a male and Eve was a female. We observe differences among people described in the Bible.

• Esau had red skin and hair, while Jacob was smooth.
• Some men were huge, called giants, while others were small. David was slender of build.
• We have examples of black people in the Bible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

setst777 said: ↑
As long as you believe that "Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms" then you agree that all things produce after their own kind, which is the creationist view.

If evolution has no concept of higher life forms, then evolution only means that all living things continue to reproduce after their own kind – not into higher life forms from more simple life forms, even though they have the ability to adapt, making variations of that kind – species, as in adaptation. That is all in line with creationism.

No, you misunderstand. Evolution can produce simpler life forms or more complex life forms, it just doesn't entail value judgements like 'higher' and 'lower'.

The rest I already explained.

 

[setst777]

No, you misunderstand. Evolution can produce simpler life forms or more complex life forms, it just doesn't entail value judgements like 'higher' and 'lower'.

The rest I already explained.

A complex life form is considered by evolutionists to be higher on the tree of evolution. But then, you don't believe in the evolution has a concept of higher life forms. So that settles that.

You may be a creationist in the making, but do not know it yet.

Blessings.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A complex life form is considered by evolutionists to be higher on the tree of evolution. But then, you don't believe in the evolution has a concept of higher life forms. So that settles that.

Well, not really. If by 'higher' you simply mean position on the 'tree of life', that may or may not be true, depending on how the tree is represented. But there are many ways of representing it, e.g. branches up, branches down, branches left, branches right, circles, spirals, etc.

Also, while organisms closer to the common ancestor are typically less complex, the vast majority of contemporary life is still relatively very simple (microbes). Complex organisms are the exception rather than the rule, and it doesn't follow that complexity increases with increasing diversity or time. Many organisms have become less complex over time.

You may be a creationist in the making, but do not know it yet.

That's an interesting thought - that one could be a creationist and not know it!

 

[J_B_]

Maybe because I don't know when I respond to you that I haven't grasped the context you had in mind. You ask a question, I answer, and you say I never seem to grasp the context you had in mind. So be more explicit - explain what the context is.


In the OP you asked for alternative approaches to creation from those that reject creationist science. I gave the two theoretically possible versions of creation I know of, neither of which I think are testable.

You replied saying you expected that kind of answer, and asked if I consider that you wanted "something different than the typical creationist approach". I don't know what you mean by that - the examples I gave are not the typical creationist approach.

Then, presumably by way of explanation, you posed an apparently impossible question on population genetics with sheep and wolves, which I tried to explain wasn't possible. You said I could adjust it or give a different one - but you never explained what you were trying to show with it.

Next, you started talking about assessing and measuring intelligence, so I gave you my views on that.

Then you started talking about problems of distinguishing between causes with similar effects, followed by a statement about the difficulty of predicting specific events...

I responded to each of these apparently unconnected topics as best I could, but when I told you I didn't know where you were going with the discussion, you seemed surprised.

Well, I'm not a mind-reader, I just respond to what is posted if I think I can contribute. I don't know what you mean by, "maybe when you're losing ground your tactic is to to accuse your opponent of being unclear to save face. That's not good. That leaves some kind of triumphalism where you specifically pick me for a conversation because you feel you always win and you like that feeling". We haven't been arguing over anything, so in what sense could I be 'losing ground' by discussing the above topics? Equally, in what sense can I be 'winning'? I just don't see where you're going with this discussion - so I said as much ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I answered the OP to give my view of the question, and I've patiently responded to the disparate scenarios and musings that followed, wondering if they might be connected in some way, or maybe just a meandering discussion.

I don't know, you tell me...

Sorry, but I'm still left wondering why you bother to reply. I'd prefer someone who wants to be here and thinks the exercise is interesting. I don't need someone to patiently suffer through what they consider an incomprehensible mess - for whatever reason.

In order to meet your request to be explicitly clear, I will make a series of brief statements. Please reply to each as to whether you understand them and whether you think they support the overall objective.

1. An intelligent being creates an object.
2. We are not there to witness the event, nor is the being available to explain it to us.
3. We wish to understand how the being created the object.
4. I want you to choose the object. I want you to chose the being who created it.
5. For your choice, please tell me if you already know how the object was created.

That's enough for a start. If you decide this meets your criteria for a clear context, and decide to address those 5 items, we'll proceed from there. I will note, however, that I am traveling most of this weekend, so my responses may be spotty for a few days.

 

[essentialsaltes]

1. An intelligent being creates an object.

If i'm understanding your program, ultimately you want this to be a conclusion that can be reached based on some evidence. I'm not sure starting with it as an assumption is that valuable.

Given most of the stories being spun so far, a common element is that the creator leaves behind no possible physical evidence of her handiwork. (Or we are prevented from obtaining it -- no cameras allowed!)

So it may be more fruitful to ask, "What conditions would allow us to conclude a thing was created by an intelligent being, given that there is no physical evidence?"