>No one here since I've been reading this listserve has provided any
>criteria _at all_ to tell if something is designed just by looking at
>it.
Are you guys aware of Hubert Yockey's(reference at end) contribution to
this from the science of Information theory. He provides the criteria:
There is an intelligible difference between _order with low complexity_,
which either non-ID or ID can produce, and _order with high complexity_,
which only ID can produce.
Now the computer program that follows is an example of _order with low
complexity_.
10 Thow a rock down next to the man made lake in Ohio
20 Repeat
The equivalent of a computer program that is contained within human DNA is
an example of _order with breathtakingly high complexity_. It even
_corrects itself_ when "lines" are deleted at random by cosmic radiation.
Imagine taking the most sophisticated computer programs human ID produce
and delete lines at random. See how long they survive. DNA, as are all
processes that can be represneted by computer programs of _high_
complexity, is the result of ID.
>It seems to me you have absolutely no reasonable criteria you assessing
>design. If you got it, state it and we can move on from there.
Where shall we go?
If you don't recognize ID as fact beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are
actively suppressing truth made plain by God. (Read Romans 1:18ff)
Neal Roys
**
Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology =A91992
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press,