Hi Pim,
Bertvan: If it looked designed, I'd assume it was --until I had evidence it was the
result of random processes.
That's the problem, it looks designed to you but it isn't. Too many false positives that way.
Bertvan: True, rocks and mountains sometimes appear to
resemble something unrelated, and common sense tells us the resemblance was
accidental
Common sense is a poor judge.
Bertvan: However random processes can rarely be proved.
Nice strawman.
Bertvan: I assume everything which looked was designed. Perhaps your "common sense" tells you
anything not manufactured by humans is not designed. My "common sense" tells
me differently. Does your "common sense" have some sort of priority?
My common sense explains equally well and does not require an imaginary designer. Occam rips once again.
Bertvan: Are you defining design as describing only those artifacts which are
manufactured by humans?
I am saying that that's the only design we can try to recognize as such
Bertvan: As for the "apparent design" which I see in nature,
like you, I have no idea how it originated.
Good. So you agree that there is apparant design
Bertvan: Unlike you, I can't state with certainty it is not the result of any kind of intelligence.
Of course not. But then again there is no supporting evidence in your case now is there? And there are perfectly good arguments that need no intelligence to explain the observations. See the problem is that you are assuming something for which there is just no evidence. It's based on a potentially unreliable
observation. So how can you even hope to distinguish design from apparant design when you all but admit that you can't?
Bertvan: Again, are you defining intelligence as some trait common only to humans.
Not at all.
Bertvan: (And other organisms to a lesser degree)? Personally, I would define intelligence as
the ability to create order or rational designs, make rational choices--whatever it's source. I suggest humans posses the ability to some degree, but I wouldn't suggest intelligence, an abstract quality, couldn't exist in the absence of humans.
Nice strawman dear Bert since this is also not my argument.
Bertvan: If we get our definitions straightened out, and we still have an area of
disagreement (I suspect we would), do you agree that legitimate differences
of opinion can exist between intellignt people?
Of course but you should also agree that there is just no scientific evidence to support your "common sense". Your explanation fails the Occam test. Your explanation fails to be supported with any evidence.
That's why it's called faith dear Bert.