Nature or design?
Human design can be inferred. Therefore, everything that looks designed and is not designed by humans is designed by an Intelligent Designer
With all due respect, Nebullis, detecting the activity of intelligent agency is an indisputably common form of rational activity. This thread constitutes a test, proposed by general-re on another thread, which I at leat hope will serve as an evaluation of the competing explanatory power of chance, necessity, and design with respect to whatever pictures of the general's choosing he posts. One of my goals in accepting this challenge is to determine more precisely, to use your phrase, what "everything that looks designed" actually means with reference to chance, necessity, or design. The method is my application of the three-fold criterion of contingency, complexity and specificity to whatever pictures the general posts. Although I am particularly unsuited to the task, I have accepted the general's challenge because no one else so far had done so. If you have suggestions for, or challenges to my application of the stated criterion in this experiment I for one certainly welcome your input.
Cordially,
Nature or design?
That's a non sequitur and not resolved. I was commenting to cornelis, who in his posts implied that general_re is making invalid generalizations, that it's the IDists who leap to an invalid inference of universal design from the particular of human design. It is not established that what we know about human design in any way applies to something designed by an Intelligent Designer. The tests for such design is simply gap-gaming.