Replies

". . . ID at this point in its development is following a conjecture, and it seems a quite reasonable one to me from an empirical standpoint: that there is a "designed quality" or a kind of "patterning" built into the world, which is a conclusion that can be reached simply by observing the world. . . ."

It is reasonable to use empirical observation and conclude that explaining the origins of biological complexity are problematic. It is not empirically-verifiable to claim that because that explanation has not yet been produced that it implies Intelligent Design. And I can accept the term "patterning" but not "designed quality" which imply two different concepts from my point of view.

Thank you so much for your further clarification and for this fascinating exchange with betty boop!

Please do not presume though that because I see an autonomous biological self-organizing complexity that I have accepted or rejected other types of complexity, e.g. irreducible complexity.

From the very beginning of the ID debates I have argued that it was an unfortunate decision on the part of the ID supporters to invent a new kind of complexity. It clouds the issue by raising a new definition. IOW, irreducible complexity looks backwards and calls "irreducible" what a forward looking model would call "punctuated equilibrium" or "functional complexity".

We had just gotten to the point on the Plato thread where the types of complexity were on the table. You left, the thread died - but the point is that there are two distinctly different types of complexity (least description and least time) and we were positioned to examine the various formulations - Kolmogorov, self-organizing, physical, functional, irreducible, specific and metatransition (punctuated equilibrium).

That, IMHO, is what needs to be investigated in our round-table before we can make any further progress. IOW, it is not accepting intelligent design based on a definition - but trying to find a definition so that we can understand what we are looking at.