[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?

[PatrickHenry]

How do we reconcile this definition of design [" ...tend to imply some sort of abstract thought and conscious will ..."] 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?

If you include among the "designed" a behive and a termite mound (and presumably a clam shell, a spider web, a gopher hole, a beaver dam and a bird's nest too), then why not a pile of dog poop? Just as much "abstract thought and conscious will" is involved -- by which I mean none. To my way of looking at things, all such phenomena are natural objects, and not the result of intelligent design.

I was serious back in post 489 when I proposed this:

Nature: By this, I mean something that happens, or that is formed, "naturally," in accordance with the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and without intelligent intervention (ignoring the issue of whether Providence is deliberately causing everything to happen) -- for example, the Mississippi River, as it existed before humans lived in North America, is natural.

Intelligence (or Design): By this, I mean things or events that are the result of intelligent intervention in the otherwise natural processes of the universe -- for example, the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, etc., are not natural.