Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Physicist; general_re
Show us criteria that work, first. We're not saying that the design hypothesis is necessarily wrong, just that it's not necessary. But if it can be upgraded to testable someday, we can discuss it further.

So far as I know, only one "pro-design" person on FR has ever consented to play "general_re's" "Design Inference Game" in which he offers up several images of objects and asks the contestant to decide whether the item is the result of natural processes or "intelligent design," and provide the reasoning behind their choice.

The reality is despite much posturing and boasting, nobody seems to be able to come up with a very reliable mechanism by which to distinguish design from nature in the absence the context of the object under discussion. Mere "observation" doesn't seem to work very well.

91 posted on 12/03/2004 2:09:53 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: longshadow
So far as I know, only one "pro-design" person on FR has ever consented to play "general_re's" "Design Inference Game"...

So many new people that I suppose it's really just a matter of time before someone else wanders into that position. It's a standing offer, if anyone else is feeling cocky about ID theory ;)

112 posted on 12/03/2004 9:12:53 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson