Re: [asa] What would evidence for design look like?

From: Collin Brendemuehl <>
Date: Sat Jul 05 2008 - 22:00:55 EDT

I'm not up on the specifics of neo-ID so I simply picked Behe's principle for the purpose of beginning the discussion.
At this point I'm not ready to employ an ontological argument.
The more I read the less the simplicity of *everyone's* answers impresses me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Arago []
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 09:42 PM
To: 'ASA', 'Collin Brendemuehl'
Subject: Re: [asa] What would evidence for design look like?

Do you mean 'evidence for design' in the eyes of the IDM or in a 'neutral' theory of intelligent design, something that might just better be called neo-ID? You might want to ask Mike Gene about this because he would certainly acknowledge and even he personally 'represents' a real difference between two positions.

Well, o.k. then, evidence: first, language clarification. Graphic design, costume design, set design, interior design, design engineering, product design, etc. Is this the 'design' that you mean (in which case some is 'intelligent' and some is relatively less so)? Or would you disqualify this meaning of 'design' from your bid to find 'evidence' of any sort?

Evidence for the 'design' noted above would be to ask the person(s) who made it. "Did you 'design' this?" If they answer "Yes," then you have 'evidence.' Of course, one must sometimes hold to a level of skepticism when taking a person's word for it. Maybe it was not he or she who 'really' did 'design' it, but someone else. In any case, if it can be somehow 'verified' that Person A 'designed' Object B, that qualifies as 'evidence,' doesn't it? That IS an 'end' that Collin asks for.

The rest of the question I leave off (e.g. complexity and reducability-reductionism) until someone quickly points out that the 'designs' I suggest evidence for is NOT the 'designs' that 'they' - old ID - are offering evidence for. Nevertheless, 'evidence' has now been offered for 'a design theory' - i.e. the design of human-made things. This approach may turn out to be more significant than most natural scientists (e.g. those who suggest something can't be 'truly scientific' unless it postuates on the age of the earth!) have yet imagined, since they take something unquestionably 'more complex' (i.e. the human mind and human actions) to be a simple given all the while focussing only on natural-physical things.

For love of wisdom,

p.s. Pim's question is pretentious to say the least. It is based on vacuous reflexive thought about what it MEANS to design something. He ASS-U-MEs there IS no possible answer to his rhetorical question. So I care not to respond to him, but only to Collin, who would seemingly entertain the possibility of a legitimate answer.

--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Collin Brendemuehl <> wrote:

From: Collin Brendemuehl <>
Subject: [asa] What would evidence for design look like?
To: "ASA" <>
Received: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 4:51 AM

Pim asked a good question. "What would evidence for design look like?"

So I'd like to propose this consideration:

Behe would answer that design appears irreducibly complex.
The problem is that, using model theory methods, any potentially irreducibly-complex component can simply be placed into a new model.
And so it appears that the argument may never end.

And that, it would seem, may represent a weakness in both ID/IC and Darwinian evolution.
Why of ID/IC? Because they may never reach an end proof.
Why of Darwinian ideas? Because more complex model would seem to require more time for each added complexity.


Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 5 22:01:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 05 2008 - 22:01:09 EDT