[Diamond]

It is hard to even speak of function without telological overtones, as with an action for which a thing is specially fitted or used, or for which a thing exists. But not knowing what the object was, I was just trying to ascertain whether it was part of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action.

Now that you have identified the object as silica, and even though I have revealed my ignorance of a 'simple' compound of elements, (the object's hollowness being the obvious clue that I could not decipher) I can determine that the object does not meet the criteria of of contingency required to sustain the inference of design. Silica is the result of forces of chemical necessity that can be described by the laws of chemistry. To quote from an abstract on silica, "The compound silica (SiO ) is formed from silicon and oxygen atoms. A chemical compound is defined as a distinct and pure substance formed by the union of two or more elements. Because oxygen is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust and silicon is the second most abundant, the formation of silica is quite common in nature."

So my answer here is the same as with #2; leaving aside any anthropic principle, the silica pictured does not exhibit the level of specified complexity that would render a secure design inference.

Cordially,

[general_re]

Okay. I presume you have enough information now that you feel a bit more secure with that determination that you did before. Just to remind you, I want you to feel free to ask any questions about the objects pictured that you like. Clearly, much is dependent upon the properties of the things, some of which may not be readily apparent from a simple visual inspection. Any further information you require, I will try to provide, so long as your question is not substantially similar to straight out asking me if the thing was designed or not ;)