[Diamond]

Ok, then how do we recognize design? Give me an example.

In a scientific methodology, first would be the observations that intelligent agency is known to produce complex specified information. Where complex specified information exists from known causes it is always the result of intelligent agency, and never the result of chance or necessity. The hypothesis would be that if objects were designed they will contain complex specified information. Experimentally, biological structures could be examined and reverse-engineered to see if they exhibit CS. If some machine-like structure in microbiology has a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for those parts to function, and if it has a vastly improbable arrangement of many interacting parts, a tentative conclusion of design is warranted because such attributes are known to be produced by intelligent agency and because there is no other known mechanism that is causually sufficient to produce such IC biological structures.

The devil is in the details, though, and if becomes a matter of how to quantify mathematically the information content of a biological structure. I do not know enough about statistical mathematics to be able to answer the question, but I assume there are biologists and mathematicians who could do this in a rigorous way. I would like to see such experimentation on something like this:

The F1-ATPase enzyme has a tiny structure 10x10x8 nm that is analogous to an engine block, and a drive shaft. It rotates at 30 to 240 rpm. The "block" is based on a triangular arrangement of three subunits.
Hiroyuki Noji, Ryohei Yasuda, Masasuke Yoshida, and Kazukiko Kinosita Jr., "Direct Observation of the Rotation of F1-ATPase", Nature 386 (Mar. 1997), pp. 299-302. Separately there are a diagram and four ".mov" files (400 to 1700 KB) available.

Cordially,

[jennyp]

In a scientific methodology, first would be the observations that intelligent agency is known to produce complex specified information. Where complex specified information exists from known causes it is always the result of intelligent agency, and never the result of chance or necessity.

You're forgetting living systems. We certainly exhibit CSI by any reasonable definition, and we know for certain where we come from. (Our parents.) So in all known cases, CSI is produced by either an intelligent agency or reproduction. Then there are complicated weather patterns, interlocking geyser systems, natural nuclear reactors, sand spits, etc. etc. that exhibit some CSI, which aren't known to be produced by either intelligence nor reproduction with mutations. <shrug>

[b_sharp]

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the delay.

I have trouble understanding how the determiation of the specification is done. How do we know if some complexity is specified or not?

The example you gave is interesting but does reinforce my point that we recognise our own 'design' rather than something that does not resemble our design. It appears that we are limited in what design we can recognize to comparison to our own.

I also have difficulty with the premise that nature cannot produce comlexity that is also specified. If I look at an Wild Oat seed fresh off the plant and note the twisting tail it uses to propel itself into the ground, that complex structure looks to be specified. Or are we to assume that because it shows complexity that is also specified that it too is designed?

It seems to me that the major premise is a pretty big assumption with no research behind it. If some research can be done, ID may turn out to be a science, but it has a way to go yet.