The design filter
ID basic proposition of much use hope i can lodge it here for ref.
node 1 Law
Q.is it produced by a natural law given a set of circumstances. i.e. wave pattern
if yes we cant say it is definitely designed ( though it might be as it is possible to arrange artificats to look as though they fit natural law or chance occurence but that is not useful to us here. we want to say when we can prove that design is the only option for its creation not one of many (i wont complicate things by invoking god as creator of the laws of physics though i do think this is an area that shows desing just as much as any of the phenomena bound by the laws of science - the laws of science properties of matter etc are themselves rather highly specified for life but lets not go there.)
if no we proceed to node 2
node 2 chance
is the phenomena the result of chance if it has a intermediate probability of occuring say simultaneous snakes eyes, then we can say it can be explained by chance.
if no say 60 snakes eyes in a row we are now in the very low probability realm and for some this is enough but there is something else needed to infer design. as any 60 roll of the dice is a highly unlikely event ( you try getting exactly the same sequence again)
node 3 design
specificity the low probability event also has to follow a set pattern that is not itself random the product of chance.
i.e. the roll of 60 dice in a row all alligning to a preset pattern snakes eyes or pi ro anything else would be the killer in assigning design. say i was playing dice with you and i always rolled what i predicted you would (because this is the explicit version of the natural design inference process) infer that i have loaded the dice
an element of design has been inserted into the process.
I hope now you can see that not only do we all infer design all the time but that you dont have to see someone desinging something to tell that it is designed and that is scientific. it is used in law in forensics, in archeology in every sort of endeaveour
