Re: RE:_science_can_study_the_effect_of_an_Intelligent_Designer_on_the_natural_world

Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:41:09 -0700

>Pim:
>>Yep. I also gave an example. We see something that appears to be designed,
>>how do we know it truely was designed?
>
> Hi Pim,
>
>If it looked designed, I'd assume it was --until I had evidence it was the
>result of random processes. True, rocks and mountains sometimes appear to
>resemble something unrelated, and common sense tells us the resemblance was
>accidental. However random processes can rarely be proved. 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?

Chris
What I want to know is how to SCIENTIFICALLY distinguish design from
non-design, outside of human (and possibly animal) design. If you look at
something in Nature and think that it's designed, what not-yet-visible fact
does that imply that would distinguish it from non-designed if that fact
turns out to be the case? What TEST(s) of design can you offer that, if
successful, would support design but support not non-design alternative
theories?

It's not a matter of one person's "common sense" competing with other
people's "common sense." It's a question of presumption and burden of proof.
Obviously, claiming that something is designed is a stronger claim than the
assumption that it is the result of natural causal processes, because it
requires an additional entity, the designer, and additional causal
processes.