> Hey guys:
>
> >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.
>
Hmm? Your first example was an example of ID. So, again, you haven't
provided any real criteria for either recognizing ID nor have you
provided a possible example that would be contrary to ID. Indeed,
Yockey's computer analogy seems also false to me because it relies on a
humand designed device with a limited human designed function, in other
words, he's attempting to show complexity cannot be natural by saying
that a human designed objected with a faulty human designed algorythm
doesn't work. OF course, I could say since we have no evidence
what-so-ever of a designer of life, we have to accept the possibility
that life is a result of natural systems. It's rather silly to say, on
the other hand, that we know of no natural system that produces complex
information so therefore life must be designed when in fact life could
very well be an example of a natural system that produces complex
information.
>
> >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?
>
It was stated on this reflector that ID was useful scientifically. If
you can answer these questions, then we can move on an address this
point. If not, then it's useless to science.
> 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)
>
Thank you for saying this. ID is clearly a religious position. Fine, I
have no problem with that. Yet, regarding my original question, you have
failed to answer 1) criterea, and 2) potential negative evidence. Both
of these are required before I will accept that this form of ID has any
meaning at all, let alone any scientific meaning. Sure, it can have
plenty of religious meaning, but as a point of fact, ID would also work
for YEC, OEC, Jews, Muslums, Hindu, American Indian, South American
Indian, Australian Aborigines, Ancient Greeks, Nortic religions, African
tribal religious, etc etc. It doesn't seem to mean anthing except that
you believe in a god.
Tom