The only way I can see that happening is that whoever created everything showed up and told us, or if it's long gone, left a memoir. I can't wrap my head around how can we prove the existence of something that created everything as a conscious effort with the scientific method, that was my point. I don't know, maybe I'm stupid.
I mean, these people are trying to change science by accepting claims of supernatural origins as a-ok, where are we, in the Middle Ages?, if it is supernatural it is of no concern to the natural world.
Yes, I agree with your comments about the DI's intentions. They state that very clearly in their Wedge Strategy document. Their stated goal is to introduce supernatural considerations into every field of pursuit that they can. An example of that would be that a criminal court could consider supernatural intervention as a possibility in a court case.
But in this thread, I am interested in discussing ID solely on its scientific merits. And scientifically, it would be wrong to simply state that it would be impossible to detect "design". However, it would not be wrong to state at the moment that no one has suggested a "design test" that actually works.
In order for a design test to be scientific, it would have to contain clearcut criteria for testing things for evidence of design. It would need to be in the form of "If A, then Design, else NO Design".
So far, all I see from the IDC people is a kind of handwaving argument that attempts to demonstrate by analogy that if one can "sense" design in any particular artifact, one should be able to sense design in any organic system.
The watch lying in the meadow is one example. The argument is that due to its complexity, it is easy to classify the watch as designed compared to the grass in the meadow around it. The problem with that argument is that a given blade of grass has more complexity than the watch. Also, the argument depends on the fact that we already think we know how the watch was made. It is a kind of trick example, because I can easily postulate a credible example of how a watch could be created without the notion of "design".
For example, suppose you take one of the many computer programs that model electronic circuitry. Then you write another program that creates circuits at random and either keeps them or discards them based on any demonstrated ability for them to keep time within the circuit model. The keepers are then randomly modified and are selected or discarded based on any improvements in timekeeping accuracy.
At some point, when sufficient accuracy is achieved, the model is used to program an FPLA (a kind of programmable logic arrray) and lay out the circuit board on which it will reside.
Techniques like this are already used in engineering to solve complex problems like the optimum routing of circuit board traces. One of these techniques is called
Simulated Annealing.
Yes. And I'd add, as you so often eloquently do, that Paley's contention about an intelligent designer seems to posit more about how life got here and less about how it evolved since.
Yes, it is important to separate the notion of the origin of life, which Evolution does not address, and the diversity of life on the planet, which Evolution addresses as its main point.
However, if you consider a virus to be alive, for example, it is not hard to imagine the possibility of self-replicating molecules being formed naturally given enough time. Once that happens, you have the basic ingredients for further evolution as the molecule makes imperfect copies of itself in great numbers. Without much evidence, it is only hypothesis, though.
As for this thread, I don't think I am going to get any takers on a definition of ID that can be stated as a scientific hypothesis.
What I am looking for is a testable hypothesis. For example,
"Any two masses in the universe attract each with a force proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."
Or,
"Any two organisms, that are living or that have ever lived are descended from a single common ancestor."
