This is the beauty of Axes work: that the words in it are arranged in a manner as to convey the normal dictionary meaning of them, in English, to an English speaker. By doing so he makes his work accesible to the average reader who wishes to discover what he thinks on the topic that he is writing.
I don't care about accessibility for the layman. I'm interested in the
technical details.
The hierachical arrangement of a system would be a system in which parts are arranged in ranks of function so as to form the system.
Example of an hierarchical arrangement: Rank 1 (Compounds) - Rank 2 (Amino Acids) - Rank 3 (Amino Acid String) - Rank 4 (Functional protein).
So essentially it's categorical.
According to rank of function. i.e. Compounds must first be arranged correctly in order to for amino acids to form and function in a manner for Rank 3 to be possible. Rank 1 must be correctly arranged in order to allow Rank 2 to function correctly.
We already have a term for this:
Emergence - Wikipedia. Why would Axe feel the need to invent a brand new term for something that already exists?
A function that a system carries out as a result of the coherent manner in which the hierachical arrangement permits. i.e. The pixels (Rank 1) arranged into letters (Rank 2) - words (Rank 3) - sentences (Rank 4) - paragraphs (Rank 5) in a coherent manner form the hig-level function of conveying meaning to the observer. The low level function of pixels is to form letters, but this in itself does not form the high level function, which is observed at the 5th rank.
As per above, who is deciding all of this? For example you claim the function of pixels is to "form letters", but that's not the function of a pixel at all. A pixel in an display is the smallest addressable sort of light in that display. And even it isn't the smallest element, as pixels are in turn made up of sub-pixels (typically 3 colors) which depending on how they are lit can produce different colors. That's the real function of a pixel: a dot that can make a color.
Pixels also don't exist in a vacuum. It's not like there is a pixel manufacturer that ships out boxes of raw pixels to be put into displays. Rather, they a description for the smallest addressable part of a display which in includes numerous different hardware components.
Since you're answering "yes" to my questions about there being a technical methodology which can be independently applied by scientists to come up with the same result... then got any examples?
That functionally coherent sytems do not appear by a series of random mutations selected for fitness through the natural environment is perhaps a valid claim.
"Is perhaps"? You mean it hasn't been tested?
The test would be to make some parts available, in an environment and watch to see what happens.
That doesn't seem like a valid test. Rather, if you're trying to argue for the non-evolvability of something then the test is if a plausible evolutionary path exists.
The problem with science, admittedly is that the intelligence cannot be observed through the lense of MN even if it did deign to repeat it's creative action.
This isn't true. It's not about intelligence at all; it's about
supernaturalism. It's the latter science can't address. Don't conflate the two.
In fact, detecting intelligent design is scientific in the context of hunting for evidence of human ancestry. However, the methods employed rely on pattern recognition and understanding of manufacturing processes of artificially created objects.
Thousands upon thousands of new and functionally coherent systems should evolve from our experimental parts on a daily basis.
Why?
When just so stories are regarded as synonimous with evidence then I guess we could "prove" anything, including that irreducibly complex systems can arise by NS.
I honestly feel that creationists complaining about "just so stories" have no idea how hypotheses of how past events occurred are formulated and/or tested.
Behe wrote a whole book showing the demonstrable competence of ND to produce evolution in 3 organisms over many millions of generations in the real world.
Behe argued that certain biological systems were irreducibly complex. Then people went out and demonstrated they were reducible. His hypothesis was falsified.
