A couple of provisos, though.
First, I need to know the rules of the 'game'. Here are my proposals:
a)Whenever design is inferred three things must be established:
1. Contingency (an event is one of several possiblities, ensuring that the object is not the result of of a natural law, or an automatic, and hence unintelligent processes.
2. Complexity (the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance)
3. Specification (a match between an event and an independently given pattern)
It must be stipulated that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for DETECTING design, not a reliable criterion for ELIMINATING design, because design has the ability to mimic unintelligent causes. Consequently, things that are designed will occasionally slip past the net. But whenever the above criterion attribute design, design actually is present.
No probability amplifiers or attenuators; ie, algorithms that skew probabilties with teleological target sequences that can give the appearance of complexity, but which in actuality cannot generate it.
The above being stipulated, I would also like to have an EVOLUTIONARY INFERENCE TEST in which I posit pictures of irreducibly complex biological machines and you have to deduce and defend how such a thing could have come about without a designer - and the big rule here is that you have to explain how the irreducibly complex machine was helpful to the creature before it became what it is now. (WHY play your 'game' if you won't play mine?;^)
In all honesty, though, I don't regard any of this as a game. What we are involved in eternal life and eternal death - and that my fundamental purpose is to defend the faith I have in a Creator not only who designed things well in the beginning when they were fresh from His creative mind, but also the notion that what things are is not what they once were ("devolution", if you will) especially regarding human nature being a rebel nature against the very DESIGNER Whose work we are discussing. Thus you should know that Scripture regards us in our natural condition as rebels without a cause except our own egoistic rebellion against the Creator. My goal is to show you that your arguments against design are not just unscientific, but at heart an effort to avoid responsibility to the One who designed you.
Cordially,
One problem with this criterion is that randomly generated objects are far more complex than designed objects which tend to be rather simple.
I like it. You're a brave fellow. ;)
I've reviewed what you propose for the rules, but this seems to me to be the criteria you plan to use to determine design in some object. Thus, it's not quite what I had in mind for the rules of the game - how you determine design is strictly up to you, with the caveat that the inference is expected to be both defensible and actively defended, as you say it can be.
So, I propose to post ten pictures, of my choosing, of artifacts, objects, or structures. What I would like for each one is for you to first state your verdict - designed or undesigned - and then explain how you inferred that, in as much detail as you like. There's no time limit, and no space restriction - take as much time and space as you need to properly explain each one before moving on to the next. I won't interrupt you or post any commentary until we complete all ten, and at the end, we'll discuss the cases.
Now, by way of a disclaimer, I have no interest in pulling a "fast one" on you - I don't plan to post ten pictures and then say "ha ha, they're all JPEG pictures, designed by humans - you lose". I will try to choose pictures or illustrations such that the object or structure of interest should be obvious, and it is those things to which you can infer design or no design.
However, the claim has been advanced that design can be inferred strictly from the inherent qualities of a thing, without reference to historical or other external information, and I do expect you to hold to that in defending the inferences. That being said, please feel free to investigate the objects pictured further if you so wish, so that you might fully understand the qualities and attributes of the objects in question, although I ask that you note when you have done so. Also, please feel free to solicit advice or assistance from others if you wish - I don't want to debate a committee, though, so I only intend to address information or arguments that you present, even if you have formulated them with help from others. Ask for all the help you like, so long as you're prepared to defend what you post.
The above being stipulated, I would also like to have an EVOLUTIONARY INFERENCE TEST in which I posit pictures of irreducibly complex biological machines and you have to deduce and defend how such a thing could have come about without a designer - and the big rule here is that you have to explain how the irreducibly complex machine was helpful to the creature before it became what it is now. (WHY play your 'game' if you won't play mine?;^)
I accept, but on the condition that we not play simultaneous games. We'll go through mine, and then you can present yours. I will try to defend evolutionary propositions as best I can for examples of structures or organisms or such as you present, according to the same basic rules I have presented for you. Fair enough?
My goal is to show you that your arguments against design are not just unscientific, but at heart an effort to avoid responsibility to the One who designed you.
I understand. Personally, my goal is to show that the design inference fails by its own criteria. Let us see who is more correct ;)
The above being stipulated, I would also like to have an EVOLUTIONARY INFERENCE TEST in which I posit pictures of irreducibly complex biological machines and you have to deduce and defend how such a thing could have come about without a designer - and the big rule here is that you have to explain how the irreducibly complex machine was helpful to the creature before it became what it is now.
Could you clarify this condition? As written it makes it impossible to defend anything. If we consider an icbm (hmmm) A present in an existing organism it could not be helpful to the organism since it was something else before it became what it is now. Do you want to change it to "you have to explain how the components of the irreducibly complex (allegedly) machine were helpful to the creature before it became what it is now?"
Incidentally, this may explain why some people get fooled by the mousetrap argument.
Regards,
Lev