[cornelis]

I'm pinging general_re because such definitions may affect his test

I'd be curious to know how "useful" such definitions are and if anyone is aware of clarifications posing as conditions. As for conditions, they have been previously agreed to. (cf. post 1253 and post 14 and following). We are liable to render this game obsolete with amendations by way of clarification. It may be that the conditions for a game wherein the stakes are slightly higher than "Scrabble" may require more fine print from the start.

In addition, general_re has made it clear that the conditions should be limited in a way that prevents us from exceeding the parameters: Now, I suspect the fallback position is to say that the bees and the thermostat are themselves designed, but I'm not asking about the bees and the thermostat - I want to know about emergent structures and processes like beehives and heating cycles....

He has also made it clear that the conditions must impinge on the very theory of ID. This means that parameters of the game --and I ask, do they or do they not?-- include the conditions that are admitted by those theorists--especially in the hope of making conclusions such as: I am testing the claims of ID theory - that design is real

In that case, and if general_re's object shares our general consent, your definition of Nature will have to be set aside unless it squares with those of the theorists to be debunked. Otherwise we have a game within a game usurping the conclusion.

A way out help us through this conundrum is to admit with Aristotle that reason is a structure inside the universe and is conditional. But the argument of the ID theorists (I suspect) is using some form of captatio benevolantia, agreeing to the initial condition granted by their opponents, namely, that reason is more than that.

One thing always buried in the competition is an important logical distinction about conclusions. They may be true or valid or both. Evidently a design inference (as any inference) can be valid. It is true insofar as the conditions are real.

Those with enough political deviancy will have taken a cue that they must hop skip and jump between validity and truthfulness whenever useful.

It is possible that the ID folks are pragmatists after all (from my experience, political interests will easily make pragmatists out of most) and they are hoping like anyone else that their house will stand in the end. In short, they are hoping their conditions are true. It is easy enough to get validity in proof. The rest, as Aristotle already knew, is divination.

[cornelis]

p.s. consent is procedure for rendering conclusion valid. Those who think it renders a conclusion true have not read their Plato or made aware of the injustice of voting away existence .

[general_re]

I'd be curious to know how "useful" such definitions are and if anyone is aware of clarifications posing as conditions. As for conditions, they have been previously agreed to.

They have, but I have to say that I had a sneaking suspicion from the beginning that the initial argument was going to be over what exactly constitutes design, and when I saw Diamond label a beehive (#10) and a termite mound (#6) as designed, I knew we were headed for choppy waters ;)

I don't think it's too much of a stretch, and PH will undoubtedly correct me if I go too far, to say that PH's category of "natural objects" can be taken as synonymous with "undesigned objects". So, that being said, let's all put our heads together and see if we can't find some definition of "designed" that we can agree on, such that we know exactly what it is the design inference is supposed to be discovering.

My initial thought is that we ought to stick with the dictionary definition of "design":

de·sign (d-zn)
v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs
v. tr.

1. 1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
   2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

The problem here - well, it's a problem for someone ;) - is that all of these tend to imply some sort of abstract thought and conscious will; indeed, I think that this is rather what Dembski is leading towards - not a designer, but the Designer. But if we take that as the definition of "design", then can we really say that a beehive is "designed"? If it is, who designed it? It sure wasn't the bees - bees are probably not even capable of the sort of abstract thought that "design" implies.

So, there's one immediate problem, as I see it. How do we reconcile this definition of design with the notion of a beehive or termite mound as designed? Can we reconcile this definition of design with a beehive being designed? If not, is there some other definition of design that doesn't require conscious will and/or abstract thought, which bees are, after all, lacking?