There's no law that forbids a pig sprouting wings and taking flight. — TheMadFool

Yes, but why would an organism sprout wings in the first place, pig or otherwise? How would they get from randomly produced stubs to fully functioning wings without the end goal in mind? Not to mention on an organism that wings will work on, with the wings suitably positioned for flight? (and remember, this all being done by quarks, atoms, molecules, that somehow know precisely how to do this)

So I think my main objection is with premise 2. But I hope to say a little bit about why I think disagreement on ID is strongly divided first by responding to this part of your post:

This is an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. The conclusion is not necessarily the case, but follows from the premises with a high degree of probability, based on the number of examples in nature, and comparing them with what we know about intelligently designed human productions. — Sam26

I think I was asking after evidence not to say you were committing a fallacy, but rather because I think the question of how we count examples is precisely why disagreement is often difficult to discuss. Once one counts living items of nature as designed then there really are an incredibly large number of examples that seems to confirm the inference. Likewise, once one counts living items of nature as not-designed, the products of physical forces and nothing more, there are an incredibly large number of examples that confirms the inference. So, in both camps, it's easy to look at the other camp as irrational or dogmatic or confused, or any many other possible psychological explanations which are far from flattering (and certainly miss the point anyways)

In a lot of ways, if I am correct at least, it all comes down to how we count -- meaning, how do we include or exclude some entity from the set of designed entities.

(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat). — Sam26

I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. Or, really to put it better and keep our positions linguistically distinct, I think I'd add more to this definition of intelligent design than what you've laid out here.

What does a watch achieve that the parts couldn't? It tells time. At least, it helps us to keep track of the passage of time within the manner that we, as a culture, keeps track of the passage of time better than we can do all on our own. In some sense technology, to put it more generally, is an extension of our desires, and we so happen to live in a culture where it is desirable to be able to keep precise track of the time (even if, in some sense, we may find this desire undesirable). If one part of the watch is removed then it will not fulfill this purpose.

I'd set forth that what a designed entity does is fulfill some purpose that, in this case, an intelligent being wants to be fulfilled (hence why I'm bringing up desire before, but here I'm introducing purpose as well).

Now, higher order I suppose I could see. Sure, if the bits of a tree are separated then the tree will not reproduce. If the bits of a cat are separated then the cat will not reproduce. Separated enough and neither would even be a cat or a tree at all, not even the leftover remains of one, but simply atoms or quarks or whatever it is we want to conceptually break things down to. The whole of the cat or the tree is something over and above its parts, by way of the pattern and arrangement of these very small parts.

But I don't think I'd say that this is enough to say that something is designed. That the parts do more arranged in a certain way doesn't mean that a designer was involved, from my perspective. It seems to me that we need some notion of, first, a being who wants, and second, a purpose which fulfills that want. (I'm always using too many comma's...) -- the aspect of design I *think* we're pretty much on the same page on is in the general sense of the word. I think it's just the specifics, between higher and lower order or purpose, that seems to be how we might see things differently (and therefore count things differently)

Now I don't expect a believer of intelligent design to have to produce evidence of said being. But having a being involved is important to me because I could certainly be swayed in my opinion were such evidence presented -- some being who said, hey! here I am. Look at my records, looks at my plans, this is what I did and see what you see before you? That's what I designed.

That is, I may just be more skeptical than yourself, and desire more evidence that there was some being involved, rather than dogmatically so. I can see how another person may not need such evidence, and think that certain entities of nature are very much like our watches, but I'd hope that someone could see why I'd want more to go off of as well.

That being said, since I think it can be mostly lain to the side (these past two paragraphs I'm just addressing the charge of dogmatism more than the actual debate), I think our disagreement lays primarily with notions of higher order vs. purpose.

Do you see it that way?

Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not.

Cool. I'd say you'd be climbing an uphill battle if you thought intelligent design lay in opposition to evolution. Now, stateside, that is normally how intelligent design is presented -- as a theory which should be taught in opposition to evolutionary theory, as if it holds better or equal scientific credibility to evolution.

So perhaps that is also where some of the push back you've mentioned comes from. You mean something different from a politically contentious term, but use the same term.

But if your notion of intelligent design doesn't conflict with evolution, then that's cool. We'll see where this goes.

I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. — Moliere

I think the whole of Life achieves Life. Carve up the body and you get a murder indictment.

The living whole cannot exist without its parts. By extension, the life form needs the the whole of the environment to continue to exist. There is no separation.

It doesn't follow that all intelligent designers have been designed because some intelligent designers have been designed. — Sam26

Circular.

You're assuming that if we discover the designers, then they must have been designed, how does that follow? — Sam26

I'm assuming based on your own explanation of why an intelligent designer is necessary for our (other intelligent designers) existence. What makes one intelligent designer different from others in that they aren't designed themselves? How do you know that human beings aren't one of those kinds of intelligent designers that don't need a designer?

And why does it follow that because another group of designers was designed themselves, that this necessarily leads to an infinite regress of designers. There isn't any way to know that. We don't know enough about the designers. Maybe they've always existed, or some of them have always existed. — Sam26

I don't know. That's why I'm asking you, the current know-it-all of intelligent designers. You need to define what it is that makes some intelligent designers different that they don't need to be designed too. If the universe and the human body are so complex and intricate that they were necessarily designed by an intelligence, then why doesn't the intricate complexity of the intelligent designer need an intelligent designer? Your own explanation shows that the intelligent designer requires its own designer. It is now incumbent upon you to explain why the intelligent designer doesn't require a designer.

Hmmm, never heard the illusion argument against intelligent design, interesting. You're quite Mad, Madfool. X-) — Sam26

X-)

I like to take one step back and talk about order/pattern because it is the source of the so-called design theist's talk about. Without order (laws of nature) there can be no design. Chaos, the absence of order, simply can't lead to anything we could perceive design in, right?

Before I continue I'd like to add that even in utter chaos the possibility of design appearing by sheer chance isn't zero.

Now, what are these laws of nature that make us see design in our world? These so-called laws are conclusions based on multiple and varied observations of the world. So, they do carry weight because we've tried to eliminate bias and sheer probability. The entire edifice of human civilization stands testimony to the reality of these laws.

However, if we're to be truly certain of these laws we face a problem because every bit of order (the laws) we've discovered are inductively derived and induction is intrinsically probabilistic. This, bottomline, means we can't be 100% sure that the natural order will remain constant.

So, order goes out the window. Design and the Intelligent Designer are attached to it.

What is the inevitable conclusion?

Yes, but why would an organism sprout wings in the first place, pig or otherwise? How would they get from randomly produced stubs to fully functioning wings without the end goal in mind? Not to mention on an organism that wings will work on, with the wings suitably positioned for flight? (and remember, this all being done by quarks, atoms, molecules, that somehow know precisely how to do this) — CasKev

Design is based on laws - some constant pattern that forms the backdrop for matching entities. The pattern together with the matching entity (the flagellum, the eye, etc.) constitute design. Without the pattern (the laws of nature) there can be no such thing as design.

I'm questioning, therefore, the laws of nature themselves. They're inductively derived and there's no reason for them NOT to change in the next minute. The present state of affairs could be just a phase in an otherwise chaotic universe. The design that we see could simply be an artifact of this phase, liable to be turned on its head in the next minute or millenia. Who knows?

Look at a graph of the market for example. Zoom out into the centuries and there won't be a visible pattern (no design) but zoom in to the decades or less and you'll see the odd straight line or curve (design).

History of the world has been chaotic - mass extinctions have happened over 5 times on a geological timescale. However, look back a couple of centuries and you see patterns of progress.

Same applies to the design argument. Design is present at one level and absent at another. It's just a matter of perspective.

Also, how much further do you want to take the argument itself? It started with biology and now its assumed a physics form in the fine-tuned argument.

People attack the design argument by pointing out flaws in the design but that, of course, begs the question ''are human standards really that perfect?''

I, on the other hand, see the real possibility that the laws of nature, foundational for the notion of design, are themselves temporary states in what is actually chaos. No order, no design.

laws of nature — TheMadFool

At the risk of sounding like @Rich ( ;) ), how could these 'laws of nature' simply arise? It still makes no sense that quarks, atoms, molecules, et cetera, somehow behave in ways that allow complex living conscious entities to form.

Also, despite these mass extinctions that have occurred, I think one could easily argue there has been an upward trend in the intelligence level and creative capability of living organisms.

how could these 'laws of nature' simply arise — CasKev

To be or not to be, that is the question.

Call it what you will, the "intelligent, creative mind" is always there in some form. How you feel it is a matter of taste. Is there any difference between panpsychism and the Laws of Nature?

To me, invoking 'laws of nature' like @TheMadFool has done equates to subatomic particles behaving in certain ways just because. Panpsychism, as I understand it, says that everything has a mind of sorts.

I tend to think that consciousness and self-awareness can only exist in our physical world when there is a brain to produce/hold it.

Quarks, atoms, molecules and such appear to be the 'simplest' forms of matter, and seem to have a life of their own, despite not having physical structures that would allow them to think. For them to be able to combine into living systems, there would have to be some sort of guidance involved (i.e. the 'laws of nature' would have to be programmed into them, so that that they consistently behave according to a set of rules). Kind of like how electricity has certain reliable properties, and can be used to bring a computer to 'life' by constructing the circuitry just so. I can't see how there could be consciousness or self-awareness at this level. (e.g. Man, being a quark is really hard work!).

My guess is that essentially inanimate objects like rocks have no consciousness - they are just assemblages of particles that are affected by surrounding forces.

At the next level you have things like cells, that move with purpose, can reproduce, and can organize themselves to form part of a greater system. With no brain, there is likely no consciousness or sense of self.

Let's move on to plants. They can slowly respond to changes in stimuli (e.g. a flower will open during day, and close up at night, according to the amount of sunlight), but seem to be no more than a collection of different cell types, each with their own function. They have cellular systems that will act and react in order to survive and reproduce, but it's hard to imagine them feeling pain, or having awareness of existence.

Now insects. Here, while there is no ability for things like language and self-reflection, I am guessing there is an ability to feel pain, and to know that it sucks (even though they can't always express it in ways obvious to humans). I tend to imagine this level of brain kind of like the empty, wordless state humans can achieve through meditation - awareness of being alive, able to observe stimuli, and a sense of what's good and bad in terms of survival and avoidance of suffering.

This is getting to be a bit long, so I'll just write that between insects and humans, I would say there is a spectrum with increasing levels of consciousness and self-awareness.

certain ways just because. Panpsychism, as I understand it, says that everything has a mind of sorts. — CasKev

The "just because" just so happens to act in exactly the same manner as a creative universal Mind or a God. It is a matter of taste.

The major difference is that with Laws of Nature and God, the person (who is making his/her choice of please) is transferring all choices and volition to an outside force. Psychologically this is a big deal. One who adopts Mind recognizes the inner intelligence (retains choice and volition) as well as greater (external) intelligence, there being no possible gap in between. Again, the psychological ramifications are important.

I tend to think that consciousness and self-awareness can only exist in our physical world when there is a brain to produce/hold it. — CasKev

As I mentioned elsewhere, the concept of a "brain" bring situated in any given area of the body is as antiquated as the image of solid particles. The enteric brain in the gut is well established, and almost any one involved with arts our sports is well aware of "muscle memory" and intelligence that permeates the body (as do those who practice meditative Eastern art).

I can't see how there could be consciousness or self-awareness at this level. ( — CasKev

Those who are involved with the natural healing process are well aware of healing intelligence at the cellular level. Bacteria and viruses exhibit their own form of intelligence, mutating to survive. At the mist rudimentary level, intelligence is a adaptive vibration that communicates and receives.

but it's hard to imagine them feeling pain, or having awareness of existence. — CasKev

What they may be feeling is impossible to say but experiments reveal they do feel.

Life is very interesting in all forms.

@Rich But getting back to the issue of intelligent design, how could atoms and molecules have such complex behavior patterns in the absence of any sort of underlying physical structure? That's like electricity in a computer just doing its own thing without someone arranging all of the bits, and telling them how to behave.

But getting back to the issue of intelligent design, how could atoms and molecules have such complex behavior patterns in the absence of any sort of underlying physical structure? — CasKev

I agree. There is a creative, intelligent vibration that is imbued in the fabric of the universe. If one wishes too externalize it from himself/herself, it can be called God or the Laws of Nature. There is no way to get way from a creative intelligence or Mind.

The amount of instances that form the basis is extremely weak, so much so as to be completely damning to the analogy. Human artefacts represent a tiny proportion of all things in set A. There is an estimated 300 trillion tonnes of human artefacts in the world. There are an estimated five million trillion trillion bacteria. Even if we average human artefacts at just 1g, bacteria alone outnumber human artefacts by five trillion trillion times. All the failed organisms from the process of evolution outnumber human artefacts. by several trillion times more than this. It is ludicrous to suggest that anything about human artefacts tells us something about natural objects by strength of analogy. It would be like claiming you knew something with great certainty about all architecture because you studied one brick. — Pseudonym

I hesitate to say that this is unfair to @Sam26's argument, because it doesn't look like he has thought through any of it. Still, this is probably not a charitable count. It assumes that every single organism that ever lived is a separate instance of design, which, to my knowledge, no one has claimed in recent times.

A more recognizable position would be to assume that each species (however tenuous this concept gets for bacteria and archea) is a separate instance of design. That number, of course, would still dwarf the number of human designs. But this would still be a rather extreme creationist position, and @Sam26 has admitted that he accepts evolution. Is Life a single instance of design then? Or perhaps even the nomological structure of the universe? But the formula "parts that together perform a higher order function" (problematic as it is) can hardly apply to life in general or the laws of nature - it is clearly inspired by particular instances of organismal "designs".

So maybe @Sam26 would be sympathetic to such ID advocates as Michael Behe, who accept some role for natural evolution, but stop well short of the universal common descent? The picture that they paint of evolution is that of a creaking, forever stalling mechanism that requires God to engage in unceasing busywork, pushing here and tinkering there to keep things going. The results of this tinkering include such wonders as the emergence of the malarial organism's resistance to the only effective antimalarial drug (Behe's favorite example) - apparently so that more poor African children can suffer and die.

But Behe and other prominent ID advocates' design criteria are substantially different from the vague one that @Sam26 offered. They can be basically summarized as "Whatever nature cannot do" - Design of the Gaps, in other words. Behe capitalizes on "irreducible complexity" - the idea that a mechanism in which the removal of any single part would compromise its function cannot evolve by natural means and therefore has to be magicked every time. Bill Dembski does something similar with his "universal probability bound" numerology and a number of other abortive attempts at demarcating design as a complement to nature. These ID proponents do not posit that every complex system that presents the appearance of a functional mechanism must be an instance of design (although that may be the conclusion for which some of them aim); rather, they are a priori agnostic on what nature alone can accomplish, but they claim that there is a limit to nature's autonomous capabilities, that what our universe exemplifies goes beyond that limit, and that anything that is left over is ipso facto an instance of "intelligent design."

Yeah, it was Dembski's arguments, in particular, that had be starting off with talking about complexity. But I'm willing to see where the thoughts go. It'd be nice to hear something that's not part of the usual offerings.

So, if I'm right, there's two threads to what you're saying.

Firstly that we could look at the sample size more favourably if we changed our definition of a 'single instance' to only the 'initiating instance' of some kind of mechanistic process, rather than every single result. The problem is that we then end up with an entirely arbitrary distinction. If we're accepting evolution, then actually, the only thing that was invented was DNA, the rest follows mechanistic all from that. But then DNA follows mechanistic all from the basic properties of chemicals until we end up at the big bang. So, if we accept a mechanistic interpretation, the only 'instance' is the big bang - after all, why accept evolution, but not physics? Then we end up with a dilemma because aren't humans ultimately a creation of the big bang? Thus everything we've designed (indeed the very fact that we design things at all) is part of the one single instance of design. Which means we have a sample size of one and no answer to the question "was it designed?".

Could you pick a definition of an 'instance' which makes the sample size of human designs more favourable? Yes, probably. Would you have any objective justification for choosing that definition? I can't see it.

For evidence, as a thought experiment, let's say that the sample size, however we measure it, is currently too small to justify an inference. We've decided that, in all liklihood, we are not justified in saying that nature is designed. I then decide to change things, I go on a design rampage, and using my powerful AI, I file 1,000 patents a minute. After a couple of years the numbers start to stack up. Have I somehow changed reality? How have my actions affected how likely it is that nature is designed?

Secondly, you mention the God of the gaps arguments, that there are limits to what nature can do and so a designer is required.

Im not sure if your point here was just to point them out or to posit them as seriously worthy of consideration, but in the case of the latter...

Genes do not always produces small changes. The hox genes for example can completely alter the position of an entire limb, now with epigenetic as well, there is absolutely no biological requirement for changes to be tiny or sequential.

Evolution is not random, it selects from favourable attributes and rejects those which are unfavourable. Way back, Richard Hardison demonstrated the ease with which seemingly complex thing could be created randomly when selection was introduced. His computer program randomly generated phrases at a similar rate to genetic mutations, but selected for those groups of letters that were similar to a particular Shakespeare play. Within four and a half days it had written Hamlet, word-for-word, entirely from random generation of phrases.

Im not going to continue to list the entire library's worth of biological, mathematical and physical refutation of these psuedo-scientific approaches, just in case your objective was just to point out that they exist, but if its a discussion you want to have I'd be glad to.

Evolution is not random, it selects from favourable attributes and rejects those which are unfavourable. — Pseudonym

And you know this how?

If this was so, we would all be roaches. Humans would have vanished long ago. Actually they would never have even come into being.

You may not know this, but Darwinism is old hat.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution."

"It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection."

The evidence that consciousness exists is the fist fundamental experience we all have.
Everything that follows on from that must be based on that as the first premise.

And yet, paradoxically, so many people just do not see it like that.
The whole notion of atoms and non-conscious particles
being the foundation of the universe seems to be little
more than reverse-psychology to try and get us to prove otherwise -
to explore the nature of our own being.

Many will scoff at that, and yet I spend much of my time
building computer algorithms depicting the laws of gravity and such,
so I am certainly well-immersed in the laws of physical nature -
more so than most. It actually is fairly amusing to see how so many
people argue against their very own existence, when all they actually
can really prove to themselves in all sincerity - is that existence.

There is no way I - or you - can prove that this is not just a dream.
But if this is an illusion - I still know that it is "I" that is suffering it.
(With apologies to Descartes and Kant)

My reference to some other ID-ers and creationists was just such an attempt to identify a more favorable sampling, where the number of instances is not too many (not every living organism or every species ever) and not too few (not life or the universe itself, which in any case doesn't fit Sam's criterion). If the Designer only occasionally magics a new design, then the numbers can be at least comparable.

I then went on to point out that the design criterion used by those other creationists is actually not the one Sam used. And no, of course I don't think that such Design of the Gaps is a good argument.

There are, I think, just two distinctive families of objects under consideration: human artefacts and biological organisms. Because clearly there are many more within-group commonalities than there are between-group commonalities. And also because it's silly to deny evolution and common descent in this day and age. So, just on statistical grounds, any inference that sorts instances into groups judging by their appearances is going to be extremely weak: there are only two instances here.


But is there something to the idea that

Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone — Sam26

Well, on one level this just seems to beg the question by referring to "parts" that are "arranged" in order to "achieve" or "be used" for something.

On another level, charitably interpreting the mereological and teleological language as merely descriptive, this could be seen as describing a generic complex system, where parts (with the proviso that mereology is at least partly subjective) interact with each other. In any such system "the whole is more than the sum of its parts." But this reading is much too broad. Not only does it fit everything in this universe, but it even fits countless other possible systems, most of which have nothing to do with design.

So back to teleology then?

I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. Or, really to put it better and keep our positions linguistically distinct, I think I'd add more to this definition of intelligent design than what you've laid out here. — Moliere

Actually, there may be something - not in all objects of nature, but specifically in biological organisms - that exhibits such a teleological structure. It is hard not to notice how naturally we think in terms of functions when we think about organisms, both from the perspective of their present-day structure and behavior and from the perspective of their evolutionary development. Indeed, this has been noted both by theoretical biologists and by philosophers (Ruth Millikan being particularly notable among the latter). I refer you to this short SEP article: Teleological Notions in Biology.

But, first, there are plausible reasons for biological organisms having this structure that have nothing to do with being the product of intelligent design (see above). Second, as @StreetlightX noted, the more we learn about them, the more we see how very different those biological "designs" are from all the incontestable examples of design that we know. And, as I said, no reasonable inference can be made from one family of objects to another, very dissimilar family of objects, on the grounds of one tenuous commonality.

I want to step back a little and ask this question: How could we generalize the notion of design when all we know is human design? We could, of course, identify things that are common to all or most human designs, but, as @Pseudonym has pointed out, that would trivially include such properties as being produced by people. In order to select broader design criteria, we must already have some idea of what else, other than human design, our definition is going to encompass. But then, of course, to do what @Sam26 wanted to do, i.e. turn that definition around and use it to infer a matter of fact would be invalid. We already bundled that matter of fact into the definition.

Still...

I'd set forth that what a designed entity does is fulfill some purpose that, in this case, an intelligent being wants to be fulfilled (hence why I'm bringing up desire before, but here I'm introducing purpose as well). — Moliere

It seems to me that we need some notion of, first, a being who wants, and second, a purpose which fulfills that want. — Moliere

Yes. The lesson from the failure of various attempts to come up with a set of narrow criteria that define design - criteria that apply just to the product of design (complexity and such) - is that design properties must be broad: they must encompass not just the thing that is designed but, essentially, the designer as well.

The point is that when we look at human productions that exhibit the features named in premise one, they are the result of intelligent design. In fact, even if you had never seen a watch before (Paley's argument), and stumbled upon one, you surely wouldn't conclude it happened by chance. Why? Because we are very familiar with the evidence of intelligent design. — Sam26

No, the reason we recognize a watch as a designed thing is not because we can recognize some general hallmarks of design just by looking at it. It is hard to get into the mind of a person from a primitive culture, where there are no watches. But plausibly, she would realize that the watch is unlike any familiar objects of nature. At the same time, she might reason that people (or other anthropomorphic agents - gods?) manufacture things that are not otherwise encountered in nature, and on these grounds suppose that the watch is one such artefact. This inference already relies on broad observations - observations that are external to the thing in question.

(I'm always using too many comma's...) — Moliere

You should worry more about too many apostrophes ;)

It actually is fairly amusing to see how so many
people argue against their very own existence, when all they actually
can really prove to themselves in all sincerity - is that existence. — Jonathan AB

The psychology of denying one's own existence (specifically mind), is rather interesting. I have never been in that space so I don't know what it feels like, but my own suspicion is that no one really feels this way, they just say it for economic reasons (maintain their job security) or role-playing as I use to play a robot when I was young.

If we can accept that our world has been intelligently created in some way, what do you think would be the most likely implications, and why? — CasKev

What is the nature of consciousness? — CasKev

I think creation began with consciousness and that consciousness is the state life aspires to. The reason for the awakening may be beyond our rational thought but might be as simple as "separating the grain from the chaff." All this a form of evolution.

I think creation began with consciousness and that consciousness is the state life aspires to. — Jon

This is so obviously the complete opposite of what is evident.
But that aside why would life aspire to that which began everything. You you even know what evolution means literally?

You you even know what evolution means literally? — charleton

Evolution literally means "to roll out of."

At the risk of sounding like Rich ( ;) ), how could these 'laws of nature' simply arise? — CasKev

Infinite Monkey Theorem

The monkey, if given sufficient time, WILL produce Shakespeare's and Einstein's works. Yet, the source is totally random. That raises the possibility that the world we're in, all its laws included, is just a temporary phase/state of ''order'' and, given time, it'll revert to its original state of random chaos.

Nor order, no design.

No design, no intelligent designer.

I think I was asking after evidence not to say you were committing a fallacy, but rather because I think the question of how we count examples is precisely why disagreement is often difficult to discuss. Once one counts living items of nature as designed then there really are an incredibly large number of examples that seems to confirm the inference. Likewise, once one counts living items of nature as not-designed, the products of physical forces and nothing more, there are an incredibly large number of examples that confirms the inference. So, in both camps, it's easy to look at the other camp as irrational or dogmatic or confused, or any many other possible psychological explanations which are far from flattering (and certainly miss the point anyways) — Moliere

While it's true that there are a large number of examples in both camps, what makes the argument to intelligent design so strong is that we know based on what we've observed, that we only get artifacts that display the properties of premise one in this way. And while it's true that evolutionary processes are at work in nature, this in itself doesn't mean that objects of nature don't show evidence of design. Objects of nature not only show that they evolve, but they also have the features of premise one, which is enough to conclude rationally that they too are the result of intelligent design.

If one could show that the properties as enumerated in premise one are not the properties of intelligent design, then those who argue against the argument to intelligent design may have a point. However, the analogy is perfect. In fact it's hard to imagine a better analogy.

I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. Or, really to put it better and keep our positions linguistically distinct, I think I'd add more to this definition of intelligent design than what you've laid out here. — Moliere

I don't understand? How is it that a cat doesn't have parts, e.g., legs, heart, lung, liver, etc. that work together to achieve higher order functions than any single part alone, and the same can be shown with the tree.

How is it that a cat doesn't have parts, e.g., legs, heart, lung, liver, etc. that work together to achieve higher order functions than any single part alone, and the same can be shown with the tree. — Sam26

There are no parts. It is one wholistic life form. If you look at the human it is one, there are no "parts", i.e. separation, anywhere. And if one wishes to observe even further, they is no separation between the "inside" and the "outside".

To understand the universe, one should use the ocean as a model. There is no separation between waves. This is how the Daoist and Heraclitus original viewed the life and the universe.

There are no parts. It is one wholistic life form. — Rich

That's your argument, there are no parts? I'm glad you're saying this, because people can see how silly this is. You make my argument for me. So you just use language the way you want, and you define words the way you want. Well, that's fine, but if you want to seem reasonable you might want to join the rest of the world, who would say that there are parts, and that there are distinct parts. If there aren't parts, what are we naming when we say, that's a heart, that's a lung, that's liver, that's a brain?

I

That's your argument, there are no parts? — Sam26

It is not an argument. It is an observation that is easily made by observing a human cadaver.

There are forms, but there are no beginning or ending of the forms. You can try to put same names to forms if you wish but you cannot say where one begins and one ends. Failing to understand this leads to problems in both understanding the universe and life. It is a continuum. Holistic health practitioners of all cultures understand that to understand health, to treat health, one had to consider the whole of body as a complete, indivisible system that interacts with all that is around it.

The human body evolves continuously physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritual as an inseparable whole within a whole. Problems in any areas will cause problems throughout the system, as a traffic jam in a small street in a city can reverberate throughout the whole of the city.

One cannot separate waves from an ocean.

If one could show that the properties as enumerated in premise one are not the properties of intelligent design, then those who argue against the argument to intelligent design may have a point. However, the analogy is perfect. In fact it's hard to imagine a better analogy. — Sam26

This must be the Donald Trump school of philosophy.

You got me Sophist, I went Trump university. :B