Complexity, Intelligent Design, and Nature

While recently travelling at 34,000 feet, I was struck by an image.  I had to take a picture.  Please forgive the quality.  It’s difficult to take a picture with a cell phone through two sheets of plexiglass at that altitude.

So here’s the challenge.

  1. Identify two patterns contained in this picture.
  2. State which pattern is more complex.
  3. State why the pattern you choose is more complex (i.e. what definition of complexity are you using and why does the pattern you choose fit that definition BETTER than the other pattern.)
  4. Which pattern is man-made and which is not.

This simple test will show that deisgned things can be very simple (i.e. not complex) and not-designed things can be very complex.

Lesson over.

I predict that only one pro-ID person will attempt to answer this. 

I further predict that he will probably ignore the two obvious patterns and make up some crap about the airplane window or something.  If he does go for the field vs. the run-off channels, then he will argue that the purpose of the structures are important to complexity.  However, if he does that, then his entire argument that ID can be used without knowing anything about the target item will be shown to be wrong.

Of course, he could describe them correctly, then state that it doesn’t matter because they were both designed.  Of course, that won’t work either, because there is no way to tell that anything was designed.   Remember, if everything is deisgned, then logically, the designer is physics, chemistry, and evolution, no intelligence required for anything.

Let’s see which way he jumps, shall we?

BTW: I’m leaving the spelling error in two place (one hidden and one not) to verify that my predictions are correct.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Creationism / ID, Ideas, Prediction, Skepticism. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Complexity, Intelligent Design, and Nature

  1. Pingback: Complexity, Intelligent Design, and Nature | Cassandra's Tears : Designs

  2. Joe G says:

    This simple test will show that deisgned things can be very simple (i.e. not complex) and not-designed things can be very complex.

    And who has said otherwise? Also the design inference requires more than mere complexity.

  3. ogremkv says:

    Perhaps you should explain, in detail, what the design inference is. Perhaps you should give an example. Perhaps you should explain why Dembski has abandoned the explanitory filter.

    Oh wait, I forget, you know more than Dembski and Behe and all biologists. In fact, you know so much that you can’t even explain it. Nevermind.

  4. Joe G says:

    Perhaps you should explain, in detail, what the design inference is.

    Already have- as have others. Geez archaeology and forensic science depends on our ability to determine design from nature, opeating freely.

    Perhaps you should explain why Dembski has abandoned the explanitory filter.

    He didn’t. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.

  5. ogremkv says:

    Joe, who’s the ‘designer’ when we look at archaeology and forensics?

    Now, who’s the designer when we look at life?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-thanks-for-professor-olofsson/#comment-299021

    Originally Posted by William A. Dembski
    (1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

    No, Joe. It is you that doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  6. Pingback: A reply to Joe Jensen | Cassandra's Tears

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s