gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (05/15/85)
> > > [Ernest Hua] > > > The > > > design argument is bogus. How do you perceive design? What > > > "designed" things are you using to compare? What "non-designed" > > > things are you using to compare? If, as creationists claim, God > > > designed everything, how do you perceive design when you can't > > > tell the difference between a "designed" article and a "non- > > > designed" article (because you can't)? I am interested as to > > > what you will propose to get out of this bind. > > [Dan Boskovich] > > The difference between a tumbled pebble and an arrowhead, an au- > > tomobile and a junkyard, a statue and a mountain, a human being > > and a pile of chemicals is that one is a result of time, chance, > > and inherent properties of matter, and the other has irreducible > > properties of organization that were produced by design and crea- > > tion. But, according to creation theory, the pebble and the mountain *were* designed by God, since He designed and created *everything*. Are you sure you know design when you see it? > [Ernest Hua] > Since you did not answer the questions ... instead you resort to raising > examples without explaining them ... I will have to repeat my questions: > Now, once and for all, answer the questions with straight forward objective > answers! > > 1) What characteristics distinguishes a designed article from a non-designed > article? I can make a pretty good argument against the existance of a reliable, nontrivial (i.e. doesn't just say that everything was designed) method (algorithm) for determining whether an object was designed or not. (Some of you may recognize the following as similar to the nonexistance proof for algorithms solving the halting problem) The argument goes something like this: Assume we have a method for determining whether objects were created or not. We should be able then to design and build an object not meeting the test for design. Since the object was designed, but the test marks it as undesigned, the test must not be reliable. The only thing that keeps this from being a rigorous proof is that "should be able to" part, but I think that's a reasonable claim. It may be hard to build a rock from scratch, but then, people don't usually try. And when they do, they often succeed (ever heard of manufactured diamonds?). -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon ATT: (206) 527-0832 USnail: 5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 Earth: 47 39' 55" N, 122 18' 46" W Quote: I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. -- Galileo