12 May '08 02:45>
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI understand completely where you're coming from, and agree that 'intuition' is not science. Looking at something and somehow 'knowing' that it was designed is not how science is done. But I will assert that the 'intuition' aspect IS often how it begins. As you expressed, it's the formalizing of the grounds for asserting the idea after that initial 'knowing' that is where the rubber meets the road.
[b]So, should I, for the purposes of this thread, accept that non-ID people CAN'T tell the difference between a designed and non-designed object?
Well I certainly can't. Therefore any experiments would not be reproducible. There should be some sort of objective facts you can point to as evidence of design.
Your 'premise' is not a premise. ...[text shortened]... scientific facts into account that they failed to account for the first time.[/b]
I believe ID is a more developed theory than you give it credit for. I have read some of William Dembski's writings, and while I can't keep up with understanding those probability equations, I can sometimes understand the ideas that are being formalized with those equations. The main idea that he has/is developed is 'specified complexity' as a proof of intelligent design, which uses the same types of mathematical analysis you spoke about with communication theory.