The role of Complexity in ID

[OrdinaryClay]

ID does not claim complexity by itself is an indicator of intelligence.

An instance of complexity by itself while improbable is not an indicator of design. For example, let's say you have a rock in your hand. The probability of that rock looking exactly as it does is highly improbable. The exact surface form, size and weight of that rock is made up of so many possible combinations that it is highly improbable that you will pick up another exactly like it. Yet, the total set of all rock combinations is huge, and when we pick one rock up we know for a fact that it has to take some form. The problem is the rock is unspecified, therefore no one is surprised when we pick up that rock.

The ability to show that the complexity we see is specified increases our suspicion greatly as to how that rock could have come to be. Something is specified if it matches a predetermined pattern. Predetermined in the sense that before we look at the rock we specify the pattern. Suppose we pick up a rock and it kind of looks like a face. Depending on how closely it matches what we know to be a face will depend on how suspicious we are that the rock is an example of specified complexity. No one questions whether the rocks on easter island were created by intelligence or not.

If we find specified complexity that is also functional in some way, that is, it serves a purpose that matches a predetermined pattern, we can increase our belief that this did not arise from necessity or chance. DNA is an example of functional specified complexity. DNA has encoded in it the information needed to produce nano technology.

 

[sfs]

ID does not claim complexity by itself is an indicator of intelligence.

An instance of complexity by itself while improbable is not an indicator of design. For example, let's say you have a rock in your hand. The probability of that rock looking exactly as it does is highly improbable. The exact surface form, size and weight of that rock is made up of so many possible combinations that it is highly improbable that you will pick up another exactly like it. Yet, the total set of all rock combinations is huge, and when we pick one rock up we know for a fact that it has to take some form. The problem is the rock is unspecified, therefore no one is surprised when we pick up that rock.

The ability to show that the complexity we see is specified increases our suspicion greatly as to how that rock could have come to be. Something is specified if it matches a predetermined pattern. Predetermined in the sense that before we look at the rock we specify the pattern. Suppose we pick up a rock and it kind of looks like a face. Depending on how closely it matches what we know to be a face will depend on how suspicious we are that the rock is an example of specified complexity. No one questions whether the rocks on easter island were created by intelligence or not.

If we find specified complexity that is also functional in some way, that is, it serves a purpose that matches a predetermined pattern, we can increase our belief that this did not arise from necessity or chance. DNA is an example of functional specified complexity. DNA has encoded in it the information needed to produce nano technology.

This is as vague as every other description I've seen of specified complexity. No on in practice makes a list of all the predetermined patterns that we're interested in; consideration of design starts after observing the object, not before. What specification seems to come down to is familiarity: if an object displays a pattern that looks familiar to humans, than it is specified and therefore surprising. But there is no way of measuring that intuition. How familiar does an object have to look? What units is this measured in? In extreme cases this can work well enough as a rough guide, as it does on Easter Island: we know that humans make representations of faces, we know that humans carve stone, we don't know of natural processes that create such exact replicas of faces, and many examples were found together, in an area where humans were known to be, so we can conclude that the faces were made by humans. (I see that, oddly enough, intelligence actually doesn't need to be invoked here at all. One could conclude that a mound was produced by termites by a similar argument.) But when it comes to interesting cases in biology, where ID makes its claims, most of the steps in that logic fall apart. We don't have a known designer that could have produced DNA, we know nothing about the interests or abilities of such a designer if one exists, we have a poor understanding of the chemistry of DNA and (especially) RNA, and we only have one example (life on Earth). So we really can't draw any conclusions about intelligent design here.

The situation with "function" seems even worse. All you did above was redefine "function" as "serving a purpose". How do we tell by looking at it whether something serves a purpose or not? Is a stream bed's purpose to guide a stream? You say that DNA is functional, but given your definition of function, why do you think it is?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

This is as vague as every other description I've seen of specified complexity. No on in practice makes a list of all the predetermined patterns that we're interested in; consideration of design starts after observing the object, not before. What specification seems to come down to is familiarity: if an object displays a pattern that looks familiar to humans, than it is specified and therefore surprising.

We recognize design because we are intelligent and produce designs our selves. There will always be gray areas, like the rock that kind of looks like a face, but this in no way obviates the clear cases such as the faces at easter island.

But there is no way of measuring that intuition. How familiar does an object have to look? What units is this measured in?

When inferring in cases like the Cambrian Explosion it is impossible to conclude with 100% certainty what is the true explanation. So you infer. You don't do this mathematically. You take multiple factors into account ...
1) How much work has been done to unsuccessfully warrant competing explanations. The more there has been the stronger the case that they are not valid. This is actually a case where the lack of evidence does support the evidence of falsity. It is a form of lose Bayesian inference.
2) We do know that clearly designed objects are always produced by human intelligence. We know unequivocally that there is a strong and undeniable distinction between what humans produce and what necessity and chance produces. This is evidence that supports the conclusion that intelligence produces distinct inimitable designs.
3) We know humans did not exist at the time DNA was first produced.

We have lack of evidence given natural causes for producing the clearly distinct and inimitable specified, functional complexity of DNA. We have proven evidence that intelligence produces distinct inimitable designs. Therefore we have evidence that intelligence produced DNA. It does not prove it, but it is the best explanation because it is the only one left standing.

(I see that, oddly enough, intelligence actually doesn't need to be invoked here at all. One could conclude that a mound was produced by termites by a similar argument.)

Notice the mound was produced by DNA.

But when it comes to interesting cases in biology, where ID makes its claims, most of the steps in that logic fall apart. We don't have a known designer that could have produced DNA, we know nothing about the interests or abilities of such a designer if one exists, we have a poor understanding of the chemistry of DNA and (especially) RNA, and we only have one example (life on Earth). So we really can't draw any conclusions about intelligent design here.

My argument was not about who or what did the design. My argument was about the nature of the occurrence and that it was a design. What is important is the characteristic of intelligence that it indicates.

Although, I as a Cristian do believe God can design.

The situation with "function" seems even worse. All you did above was redefine "function" as "serving a purpose".

No. A specified purpose.

How do we tell by looking at it whether something serves a purpose or not? Is a stream bed's purpose to guide a stream?

The explanatory filter.

You say that DNA is functional, but given your definition of function, why do you think it is?

It encodes nano technology.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

In extreme cases this can work well enough as a rough guide, as it does on Easter Island: we know that humans make representations of faces, we know that humans carve stone, we don't know of natural processes that create such exact replicas of faces, and many examples were found together, in an area where humans were known to be, so we can conclude that the faces were made by humans.

So you agree that design can be inferred.

 

[crawfish]

If complexity is an indicator of intelligent design, then the truth of the theory of evolution would no doubt point to an intelligent designer.

I'm not sure you can disprove ID by proposing things are even more complex.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

If complexity is an indicator of intelligent design, then the truth of the theory of evolution would no doubt point to an intelligent designer.

Just to be clear ... it is specified complexity that is indicative of design. Then any explanation must pass the test of an explanatory filter. If it is demonstrably explainable by necessity or chance then it is not justified in inferring design.

 

[philadiddle]

My argument was not about who or what did the design. My argument was about the nature of the occurrence and that it was a design. What is important is the characteristic of intelligence that it indicates.

So ID doesn't offer an explanation? We see that something has a specified design and then...what? When we see pyramids we recognize that humans made them, and then science can begin determining how it was done, when it was done, and by what people. If ancient pottery is found we can try linking it to known tribes of that era. In other words, with ID in archeology, we have somewhere to go with the design inference. With ID in biology, there is no new knowledge to gain from saying "it has specified complexity". Where does ID get us? What predictions does it make? How can it be falsified? Can you name any piece of scientific knowledge that ID has led us to other than "it has specified complexity"? (because we could already see the complexity of the cell before ID ever made the declaration.)

The indication of intelligence in biological systems is only important if it leads us somewhere. I have yet to see how ID is useful in biology.

 

[laconicstudent]

ID does not claim complexity by itself is an indicator of intelligence.

Oh. Well thank you, but your the FIRST intelligent design advocate I've EVER heard say that.

If we find specified complexity that is also functional in some way, that is, it serves a purpose that matches a predetermined pattern, we can increase our belief that this did not arise from necessity or chance. DNA is an example of functional specified complexity. DNA has encoded in it the information needed to produce nano technology.

Mmmm.... Proof? Science supporting your idea?

 

[sfs]

We recognize design because we are intelligent and produce designs our selves. There will always be gray areas, like the rock that kind of looks like a face, but this in no way obviates the clear cases such as the faces at easter island.

We recognize human design, because we know from experience what kinds of things human design produces. I have no idea whether we have a general ability to detect design in the abstract (and this discussion certainly hasn't convinced me that we have).

When inferring in cases like the Cambrian Explosion it is impossible to conclude with 100% certainty what is the true explanation. So you infer. You don't do this mathematically. You take multiple factors into account ...
1) How much work has been done to unsuccessfully warrant competing explanations. The more there has been the stronger the case that they are not valid. This is actually a case where the lack of evidence does support the evidence of falsity. It is a form of lose Bayesian inference.

It's not the amount of work that's been done, but the confidence we have that we have explored the range of viable physical possibilities. For the origin of genetic material, we have only a very limited understanding of the possibilities. Note that the correct scientific reaction under these circumstances is "I don't know". This is why, for example, there is no single preferred explanation for the Cambrian explosion.

2) We do know that clearly designed objects are always produced by human intelligence. We know unequivocally that there is a strong and undeniable distinction between what humans produce and what necessity and chance produces. This is evidence that supports the conclusion that intelligence produces distinct inimitable designs.

As I've explained elsewhere, we don't know this (that there is a distinction between human products and the products of necessity and chance) because it's not true. It's not even false -- it's just incoherent.

3) We know humans did not exist at the time DNA was first produced.

I will agree that that is highly probable.

Notice the mound was produced by DNA.

Now I'm confused. Are termite mounds clearly designed or not?

My argument was not about who or what did the design. My argument was about the nature of the occurrence and that it was a design. What is important is the characteristic of intelligence that it indicates.

Your argument was that is was produced by an intelligent designer, with no further specification of the designer. That is that only argument I addressed.

No. A specified purpose.

What is a specified purpose, and how do we recognize one? "Staying alive" doesn't strike me as any more specified than "guiding a stream". Also, you said that design was indicated by specified complexity that was also functional. So now you're saying that both the complexity and the function have to be specified? Does that mean we can never recognize function if we don't already have the purpose involved in our fuzzy mental list of specified purposes?

More to the point, you still haven't told me how to recognize function, or why DNA is more functional than a stream bed.

The explanatory filter.

The explanatory filter is supposed to indicate design, not function. It's also incoherent, as I've said elsewhere.

It encodes nano technology.

How is that an answer to the question, and what does it have to do with your other answers? Calling it technology begs the question of whether it is functional or not, and being small (= "nano") seems to have nothing to do with the question at all.

 

[shernren]

We recognize design because we are intelligent and produce designs our selves. There will always be gray areas, like the rock that kind of looks like a face, but this in no way obviates the clear cases such as the faces at easter island.

Or the clear cases of no-design like smooth river pebbles, right?

Suppose a race of aliens from a distant rocky planet came to Earth. The planet where they come from has extremely hard minerals which are naturally formed with jagged edges and which are very hard to work. Only the best and the brightest artisans can create a perfectly smooth, round stone, and so smooth round stones are greatly prized by aliens.

For some reason they land next to a riverbed. Now, here on Earth water erosion tends to work stones into smooth round shapes, but the aliens don't know that (they don't have rivers either, I suppose). They are jubilant. "This planet must be bustling with greatly skilled sculptors!" they rejoice. "Look at how smooth, how round, how perfectly symmetrical these stones are, rivaling the work of our best and brightest! Of course these stones have been sculpted by master artisans for the express purpose of being round and smooth and beautiful!"

This short story expresses some of the flaws associated with the ID philosophy:

1. What we recognize as design depends greatly on what we design ourselves. Over the past century we have become a very mechanistic race, depending on technology and machinery to fulfil our every whim and fancy. No wonder the intricate bits and pieces of the cell seem designed to us! But I wonder if an Amish would be as impressed.

2. What we recognize as design depends greatly on what we understand of the capability of non-design processes. The aliens had never seen smooth stones produced naturally before, so it was only understandable that they would think smooth stones must have been designed to be smooth. So if ID advocates do not understand evolution (and there is some evidence suggesting that this is the case ) then surely they will think that biological mechanisms have been designed.

3. What we recognize as design, to a large extent, has nothing to do with whether or not something is actually designed. Most people wouldn't understand modern art pieces as "designed" - especially the ones which look like just random splatters of paint. (What about aleatory music? Is that designed or random, or both, or neither?) On the other hand, ancient people thought the skies were "designed", and named recognizable constellations after their mythological heroes. Nobody believes that now.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

So ID doesn't offer an explanation? We see that something has a specified design and then...what? When we see pyramids we recognize that humans made them, and then science can begin determining how it was done, when it was done, and by what people. If ancient pottery is found we can try linking it to known tribes of that era. In other words, with ID in archeology, we have somewhere to go with the design inference. With ID in biology, there is no new knowledge to gain from saying "it has specified complexity". Where does ID get us? What predictions does it make? How can it be falsified? Can you name any piece of scientific knowledge that ID has led us to other than "it has specified complexity"? (because we could already see the complexity of the cell before ID ever made the declaration.)

As it is clear with SETI you don't need to know anything about the producer of the intelligence for the discovery of intelligence to be significant. Just knowing that the signal originated from an intelligent source would be as deeply profound as any thing else we learned from the signal.

The indication of intelligence in biological systems is only important if it leads us somewhere. I have yet to see how ID is useful in biology.

Same use as theorizing about the cause of the Cambrian Explosion.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

We recognize human design, because we know from experience what kinds of things human design produces. I have no idea whether we have a general ability to detect design in the abstract (and this discussion certainly hasn't convinced me that we have).

Intelligence is abstract. Biologists investigate the notion of intelligent behavior in the abstract all the time. We look at a known instance - humans. We abstract out behaviors that we decide indicate intelligence. We ascribe other species a measure of intelligence based on these abstractions. The Theory of Mind is an abstraction of what it is to be intelligent. We then search for this in other species through inferring from their behaviors ,i.e. signals.

It's not the amount of work that's been done, but the confidence we have that we have explored the range of viable physical possibilities.

You really should read this book ... Inference to the best explanation - Google Books

For the origin of genetic material, we have only a very limited understanding of the possibilities. Note that the correct scientific reaction under these circumstances is "I don't know".

OOL has been a hot topic since the Early part of the last century. Virtually no progress has been made. There are many non Christian critics who have worked in the field who are very discouraged by the lack results despite the huge effort put into it. OOL is not a nascent science.

This is why, for example, there is no single preferred explanation for the Cambrian explosion.

Whether there is a "group preferred" theory is irrelevant. Individual Biologists do have preferred theories. These preferences held by individuals are made based on an inference to the best explanation. The point of the Cambrian example is that this type of reasoning is legitimate science hence ID is legitimate science.

As I've explained elsewhere, we don't know this (that there is a distinction between human products and the products of necessity and chance) because it's not true. It's not even false -- it's just incoherent.

It is coherent, as the disciplines of Probability, Statistics and Cosmology(to name a few) demonstrate. Modern cosmologists are stunned at the way the universe appears designed. They are expending huge efforts in trying to explain away this appearance with chance, via the many universe theories of string theory for example, since necessity does not provide an answer. The best mathematical minds of the century are pondering these very questions. I, nor ID, made up this idea of necessity and chance. It has been recognized long before ID came on the scene.

I will agree that that is highly probable.

It is not highly probable. It is certain.

Now I'm confused. Are termite mounds clearly designed or not?

No they are not clearly designed, but it is interesting that DNA produced an example that is borderline when it comes to detection of design. No one is arguing that termites are intelligent.

Your argument was that is was produced by an intelligent designer, with no further specification of the designer. That is that only argument I addressed.

No, my argument was that design was detectable. You agreed it was detectable here. http://www.christianforums.com/t7407185/#post53112791

What is a specified purpose, and how do we recognize one? "Staying alive" doesn't strike me as any more specified than "guiding a stream". Also, you said that design was indicated by specified complexity that was also functional. So now you're saying that both the complexity and the function have to be specified? Does that mean we can never recognize function if we don't already have the purpose involved in our fuzzy mental list of specified purposes?

I explained specified complexity already. http://www.christianforums.com/t7407185/#post53112496

More to the point, you still haven't told me how to recognize function, or why DNA is more functional than a stream bed.

Functional is just an adjective that further qualifies a form of specified complexity. How is it specified. It is functional in some way. This computer is functional specifed complexity. Mount rushmore is just specifed complexity.

The explanatory filter is supposed to indicate design, not function.

My point was that the stream bed is elimiinated through the explanatory filter.

It's also incoherent, as I've said elsewhere.

I demonstrated you were wrong.

How is that an answer to the question, and what does it have to do with your other answers? Calling it technology begs the question of whether it is functional or not, and being small (= "nano") seems to have nothing to do with the question at all.

You asked me how it was functional and I answered you directly and clearly. I admit calling it technology does beg the question. Stating it encoded nano machines is entirely accurate. They are "nano" because these machines operate on that scale. You must know that modern biology has indeed discovered that cellular biology is in fact nano machinery. This is part of the great revolution of modern biochemistry. The cell is far far more complex then anyone imagined.

This is a fun video ... David Bolinsky animates a cell | Video on TED.com

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Or the clear cases of no-design like smooth river pebbles, right?

Suppose a race of aliens from a distant rocky planet came to Earth. The planet where they come from has extremely hard minerals which are naturally formed with jagged edges and which are very hard to work. Only the best and the brightest artisans can create a perfectly smooth, round stone, and so smooth round stones are greatly prized by aliens.

Just because intelligence can also mimic unspecified complexity does not mean that specified complexity can not be detected. An artists throwing paint on the wall does not make it art. A polished rock made to look like a creek pebble does not make it designed. To show that design can be detected I only need to show that there exists an item that would never ever appear by necessity and chance. The computer you are using is such an example. It could not possibly be mistaken for anything other then an intelligently designed article, ergo, design can be detected. The only question is whether a particular item is detectable as designed.

1. What we recognize as design depends greatly on what we design ourselves.

Because we are unmistakably intelligent. What we produce is a good barometer. This is not a problem for ID. It is actually a strength in the argument.

2. What we recognize as design depends greatly on what we understand of the capability of non-design processes.

This is addressed by drawing on the inference to the best explanation. Design is the best explanation at this point for how DNA acquired its specified complexity.

3. What we recognize as design, to a large extent, has nothing to do with whether or not something is actually designed.

That is obviously false. Everyone here knows that the vast majority of things humans produce are clearly and unambiguously designed.

 

[philadiddle]

As it is clear with SETI you don't need to know anything about the producer of the intelligence for the discovery of intelligence to be significant. Just knowing that the signal originated from an intelligent source would be as deeply profound as any thing else we learned from the signal.


Same use as theorizing about the cause of the Cambrian Explosion.

You've either sidestepped my questions or I wasn't being clear enough. I'll rephrase.

What part of the nature world does ID offer an explanation for? By explanation I mean something more than "nature did it" or "aliens did it." I'm looking for an actual explanation.

Also, in biology, how has ID added to our knowledge and allowed us to make further predictions for continued study?

And as far as your comment about SETI goes, knowing a signal is from an intelligent source means we can study it to try to learn something about that source. In other words, knowing there is an intelligent agent behind it prompts further study. When someone declares that the flagellum is intelligently designed, where can we go from there?

 

[philadiddle]

To show that design can be detected I only need to show that there exists an item that would never ever appear by necessity and chance.

In order for me to understand you better, please name something that you believe was made by "chance".

 

[OrdinaryClay]

You've either sidestepped my questions or I wasn't being clear enough. I'll rephrase.

I've sidestepped nothing. Your frustration seems to be that I'm not playing into your strawman that ID is not science.

What part of the nature world does ID offer an explanation for? By explanation I mean something more than "nature did it" or "aliens did it." I'm looking for an actual explanation.

ID has value as a scientific study independent of any answer given to your questions. One, The knowledge given by design detection alone is valuable scientific knowledge. Two, an answer that demonstrates design has explanatory power. It may not explain everything, but it is still explanatory. A fluted artifact that demonstrates design provides evidence for the existence of a designer. It does explain how the artifact got there. Even if the paleontologist does not know anything about the mechanism the designer used to produce or put in place the design it still explains there was a designer. This is knowledge.

Also, in biology, how has ID added to our knowledge and allowed us to make further predictions for continued study?

First, I have a question. Seems fair since I'm the one getting asked the majority of the questions ... if design detection were shown to add to our knowledge and make further predictions in some other area then Biology would you accept ID as science?

And as far as your comment about SETI goes, knowing a signal is from an intelligent source means we can study it to try to learn something about that source. In other words, knowing there is an intelligent agent behind it prompts further study. When someone declares that the flagellum is intelligently designed, where can we go from there?

It is still valuable, scientific and profound to just know the signal exists and is probably from ETI. If the sending ETI does not intentionally encode some way for us to decipher this signal we may never know anything more then that it exists and was designed. So receiving the signal does not mean we can do anything further. We hope we can, but it certainly does not make it likely.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

In order for me to understand you better, please name something that you believe was made by "chance".

I have given many already. The exact morphology of a random rock picked up in the mountains.

 

[sfs]

Intelligence is abstract. Biologists investigate the notion of intelligent behavior in the abstract all the time. We look at a known instance - humans. We abstract out behaviors that we decide indicate intelligence. We ascribe other species a measure of intelligence based on these abstractions. The Theory of Mind is an abstraction of what it is to be intelligent. We then search for this in other species through inferring from their behaviors ,i.e. signals.

This is descending into purely semantic distinctions. What you are calling abstract notions of intelligence are precisely what I would call intelligence resembling our own. Ditto for design. We have, for example, no way of knowing if there is something that has other attributes of intelligence but which wholly lacks a theory of mind.

OOL has been a hot topic since the Early part of the last century. Virtually no progress has been made. There are many non Christian critics who have worked in the field who are very discouraged by the lack results despite the huge effort put into it. OOL is not a nascent science.

"Huge efforts"? Just how much funding does OOL research get, and how many people are actually working on it? In fact, enormous gains have been made since the beginning of the 20th century. Neither DNA nor RNA were known to be genetic materials then, much less how they functioned, nor that RNA was probably the more basic of the two, nor that there were several other nucleic acids possible, nor the enzymatic properties of some RNAs.

This doesn't mean that OOL is a soluble problem, but the fact that ribozymes were only discovered fairly recently means that they're still operating largely in uncharted waters.

Whether there is a "group preferred" theory is irrelevant. Individual Biologists do have preferred theories. These preferences held by individuals are made based on an inference to the best explanation.

Yes, and they are almost always held tentatively, with awareness that the preferred explanation might well be wrong, and that more than one factor probably contributed. And individual biologists also conclude that there really isn't enough evidence even to formulate a preference.

All of which is to say, that when the evidence is highly incomplete, invoking inference to the best explanation has very little power.

The point of the Cambrian example is that this type of reasoning is legitimate science hence ID is legitimate science.

I have never suggested that inference to the best explanation is not legitimate reasoning. I've just suggested that has little practical role in the Cambrian Explosion, and the ID is in far more tenuous a state than explanations of the Cambrian Explosion.

It is not highly probable. It is certain.

You're really not a scientist, are you?

I explained specified complexity already. http://www.christianforums.com/t7407185/#post53112496

Yes, I know. But in the part I was questioning, you introduced a new concept, specified function. Specification and function were supposed to be two distinct attributes. I'm still trying to get a definition of function that does not reference specification.

Functional is just an adjective that further qualifies a form of specified complexity. How is it specified. It is functional in some way. This computer is functional specifed complexity. Mount rushmore is just specifed complexity.

Yes, functional is an adjective. I'm trying to find out what the adjective means. Could you please tell me?

My point was that the stream bed is elimiinated through the explanatory filter.

So your point does not address my question. What is a function? Forget whether the object is design, specified or complex. How do tell whether it has a function or not? Is the function of a stream bed to guide the stream?

You asked me how it was functional and I answered you directly and clearly. I admit calling it technology does beg the question.

So how did you answer me directly and clearly, if the answer you gave begged the question?

Stating it encoded nano machines is entirely accurate. They are "nano" because these machines operate on that scale. You must know that modern biology has indeed discovered that cellular biology is in fact nano machinery. This is part of the great revolution of modern biochemistry. The cell is far far more complex then anyone imagined.

Fine, but what does that have to do with whether or not it's functional? (And you might note that I'm a biologist (of sorts) so yes, I have some idea about what biology has shown.)

 

[philadiddle]

First, I have a question. Seems fair since I'm the one getting asked the majority of the questions ... if design detection were shown to add to our knowledge and make further predictions in some other area then Biology would you accept ID as science?

It seems like a trick question to me. Archeology is a science. Intelligent design is not a unique concept that has been incorporated into it. Archeology operates based on our knowledge of what men make.

Also, SETI is a scientific search for ETI. Of course, no ETI signal has been discovered so it isn't much a science yet.

But the most important point is that neither one is a qualifier for the other. It is not because of archeology that SETI is a valid search, or vise versa. They stand on their own merit because they are internally consistent as a science individually. There is no "intelligent design" that ties the two together and makes them part of the same science. That is the trick that the Discovery Institute wishes to portray. In the same way they aren't qualifiers for each other, they do not automatically make ID in biology a science. For ID to be scientific in the OOL field it would need to stand on it's own, and it doesn't. I haven't read all of your posts so maybe I missed the answer to this, but as myself and other have been saying it makes no predictions, and it adds no new information to our existing body of knowledge in the OOL field.

So in response to your question, seeing signs of intelligence in fields other than biology, if it makes predictions and adds to our knowledge, would be part of a scientific field of inquiry. However, intelligent design itself is not a scientific endeavor that crosses from field to field. If it exists in a field of science, it has it's unique characteristics to that field and cannot be used as a qualifier for intelligent design in another field of study.

 

[shernren]

Just because intelligence can also mimic unspecified complexity does not mean that specified complexity can not be detected. An artists throwing paint on the wall does not make it art. A polished rock made to look like a creek pebble does not make it designed.

I think Jackson Pollock and opal cutters would disagree with you.

To show that design can be detected I only need to show that there exists an item that would never ever appear by necessity and chance. The computer you are using is such an example. It could not possibly be mistaken for anything other then an intelligently designed article, ergo, design can be detected. The only question is whether a particular item is detectable as designed.

Do you think propeller turbines and clocks (or more specifically, the design specifications for those things) can evolve?

(Hint: this is a trap. How nice of me to tell you beforehand.)

That is obviously false. Everyone here knows that the vast majority of things humans produce are clearly and unambiguously designed.

We'll see.