Why are We Disagreeing with ID?

OK then.

  1. Design which we already know (COMMA) are produced by a mind, or
  2. Design (comma) which we know are produced by a mind,

… can be inferred from observing a purposeful arrangement of parts.

Note we could drop “mind” altogether, leaving: Design can be inferred from observing a purposeful arrangement of parts. Is this an adequate definition for Intelligent Design? I’m guessing you will say “no”, but why?

If you see what I’m getting at, “mind” in the definition of ID makes it perfectly valid, even necessary, to make some prediction about the mind behind the design in order to have a testable hypothesis.

Also, since all matter is comprised of fundamental “parts”, fit together by the laws of physics, it would appear that by your definition, all matter is designed. I do not think this definition of ID is falsifiable by any means.

If I have changed your meaning at any point, please note the error and follow through to how this could be falsified.

It appears to be a complete non-sequitur. That’s why I keep asking you for an example that might actually be relevant … like a pocket-watch.

Perhaps you do not understand what it means “to falsify” a hypothesis. So what if it can happen in nature, it could also be designed. This removes the necessity of ID, but does not remove the possibility.

Also, the definition of ID we have agreed on makes no mention of necessity or direct cause.

Again the design inference is falsified when you can put a successfully tested natural hypothesis against it as you have tentatively identified the direct cause.

And here you say outright that you are testing a natural hypothesis, not a design hypothesis. This is what prevaricating looks like.


You continue to abuse definitions, prevaricate when asked to provide definitions, torture logic, and make unsupportable claims. Have you thought about your need to do this?

1 Like

Back to this one, and tying up the loose ends. Since all matter is evidence of design (see above), then evidence for “nature” is by definition also evidence for Design. Go figure.

Evolution can be falsified in a number of ways that are clearly defined. That says something important, because if ID science, then it should make predictions that are clearly falsifiable. If there were any real science in ID, then people would be applying it instead of arguing about it on Internet forums.

1 Like

How would you infer design for this desert obelisk, which had no matched parts, or evident purpose for that matter.


Hi Dan
I think a lot of the confusion comes from evolution and design being an either or discussion. IMO both have merits and strengths and weaknesses. Design is a limited argument but is a useful tool to explain some things in nature that the natural mechanisms that are properties of matter cannot like purposely arranged parts.

Design is limited but can be a useful alternative method to shake out new ideas. It is beyond me why people are fighting the use of this new tool and method for detecting design in nature.

Hi Ron

With this type of object design detection is difficult.

As far as I can tell, your “new tool” has failed to detect anything.

And apparently it cannot even detect a case where design is obvious.


In his book, The Edge of Evolution, pp. 133-134, here is an excerpt: “So one way to get a new binding site would be to change just five or six amino acids in a coherent patch in the right way. [12] This very rough estimation fits nicely with studies that have been done on protein structure. [13]” (p. 134)

Because the immune system is set up to generate binding sites, but evolution inside the cell isn’t set up that way.

But it was mentioned that "Most proteins in the cell work as teams of a half dozen or more.” Thus these would be beyond Behe’s edge of two new protein-protein binding sites.

I think you’re avoiding the concept of a scientific hypothesis again.

You don’t have a hypothesis for design; that makes it nonexistent as science.

Hypotheses are far better tools than arguments. You should consider formulating and testing one sometime.

When I visit elementary schools to talk about science, I ask the students to consider two hypotheses:

  1. My dog sits when I say “Sit!” because s/he understands the literal meaning of the word.
  2. My dog sits when I say “Sit!” because s/he understands only the way I say the word, not its meaning.

Do you see that these hypotheses generate empirical predictions that even an 8-year-old can understand? This is how real science works.

Do you see the terms “argument,” “tool,” “discussion,” or any of your other favorites in there? Why do you go on about those things instead of hypotheses?


Different mutation rates might be the reason.

Well, HIV is special, since it has a high mutation rate, and a huge number of viruses.

Are you arguing that the two minimum mutations needed are not deleterious? If so, a reminder that they decrease significantly on the withdrawal of chloroquine.

Really? So you have a hard time determining whether that was designed and not a naturally occurring structure?

I should know by now never to underestimate your ability to astound. You’re still the champion, I should never had doubted you.

1 Like

I would suggest that design detection is obvious and immediate. The reason being that people are familiar with what is natural and what is manufactured through a lifetime of experience. It is due to this familiarity that there is recognition that sheet metal is designed and its placement in a desert is not natural. The same applies to all designed objects from knives to watches to trucks to laptops on mars or otherwise. We recognize design because we are familiar with manufacture and human made objects. The designs put forward by ID we recognize under the category of natural, and thus emerging naturally.


Since you can’t calculate poker probabilities, I doubt you know the mathematics of random walks either.

Feel free to demonstrate some expertise by, say, showing us how to calculate the expected distance from the starting point after a random walk of N steps on a flat plane.

If/when you realise you can’t, perhaps you could stop making baseless assertions.



But Behe said there were no new protein complexes. Wrote it in a book. Then an undergrad spent a few minutes on the internet and found a new protein complex.

So when Behe says there are no other new protein complexes anywhere because he says so, should we believe him?

No, I am informing you that it is known for a fact that they are not deleterious. For the umpteenth time. And each time I inform you of this, you respond with pablum like this:



Only if there are no possible intermediate steps, which is the thing you’ve been repeatedly asked to demonstrate. Because whether you realize it or not, you’ve made the claim that there are no possible pathways. It’s your responsibility to support that claim.


So a purposeful arrange of parts does not exist anywhere in our observable universe?

Why is design obvious in this case?

Well, not really. Anyone could have spent a few minutes on the internet to learn that Behe’s claim was false when it was made. At the time, Dr. Smith (for you, @Eddie) was an undergrad who worked on HIV.

And when @lee_merrill claims:

Should anyone believe it?


Bill’s flailing about becomes increasingly self-parodic.

1 Like

Whether something has a purposeful arrangement of parts depends on who is looking at it and who is describing it.

From experience, we know that such obelisks are designed. However, I do not claim to have a theory of design which demonstrates this.


Not necessarily. If there is a function you can assign a reason for it is very difficult to deny purpose unless you are generally in denial :slight_smile: