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 ;)
I have one question concerning the rules that perhaps you can clarify:
...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
My question concerns the use of side information. For example, as in post #1176, a knowlege of cryptoanalysis would be crucial to being able to infer design. I don't have any idea what sorts of pictures you have in mind, but I think that general knowledge of probablity theory and mathematics, etc will be necessary to apply the criterion. If it is acceptable to you, and just for fun, I may, depending on the nature of the problem, ask some our friends who have responded to me here such as Right Wing Professor, or Doctor Stochastic, or Physicist, and perhaps a VadeRetro or a Lev, et al for help with calculations or other scientific evaluations. Not only am I terrible as such tasks, but if they are willing, it would tend to remove any suspicion that calculations were biased in my favor:^)
I propose that success of the criterion be defined as being able to detect design where it is present, assuming that you know the causal stories behind the pictures and can verify whether design is actually present or not. Dembski does not claim that the criterion is useful for determining that something is NOT designed, for the reason that intelligent causes can mimic necessity and chance, and so I don't believe that I will be able to entirely avoid the problem of false negatives. If I'm good enough, though, the criterion should enable me to avoid false positives.
If the above is acceptable to you, I'm ready to go!
Cordially,