Evidence for God from Science

Isn't it rather ironic how a signal from outer space (an information code) would be considered a product of an intelligent source (aliens), while the DNA, as a very complex information code, must have been randomly assembled?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Byblos wrote:No, ID as a scientific mechanism by which certain traits are identifiable.

- Anthropology
- Archeology
- Forensics
- S.E.T.I.

As Proinsias' link explains and as Ivellious remarked, these areas do not use ID http://www.discovery.org/a/3059.

An archaeologist does not look at a knapped flint and see features which had to be designed. What these scientists primarily do is look at an object and compare it with known natural and manmade objects.

You mean like say computer code?

"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created."
Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 1996, p. 188

You're possibly making the mistake (that many do) that ID proponents suggest everything in nature reveals design. It doesn't. There are some features within nature (like DNA) that resemble manmade, or intelligently designed, objects.

From the Uncommon Descent site:
Moreover, ID satisfies all the conditions usually required for scientific inquiry (i.e., observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion):

1. It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information (CSI).
2. It is a quantitative and internally consistent model.
3. It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.
4. It makes empirically testable and fruitful predictions.

When rocks erode, they do not form arrowhead shaped fragments. [Cutters or scrapers are much harder to distinguish from natural objects.] The location or context (other items nearby etc) and a perceived purpose also contribute to the identification of something as manmade.
Youngsters of today walking on the beach might stumble upon a rundown watch and not recognize it as something designed to keep time. But they will immediately deduce that it is manmade - brass is not found naturally, especially in regularly patterned pieces, etc. Again, here it is not some element of design but a knowledge of what occurs naturally and what is made by humans.
When applied to life, the theory of ID is lacking these crucial references. What are known examples of designed and undesigned lifeforms and universes? What is a bacterium compared to determine if if is natural or artificial?

The “Who Designed the Designer” Argument Demolished in Three Easy Steps:

Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.

Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.

Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.

Stu wrote:You see there are some elements within nature (like DNA) that resemble manmade, or intelligently designed, objects.

I don"t know if it started with Stephen Meyer, but I am interested in the arguments for describing genetic code as "information". Naturally, as a creationist I would tend to agree with the assertion. Nevertheless, I am curious to know what the "other" intrinsic argument is for those who are bent on rejecting God?

- Nathan

Reactionary wrote:Isn't it rather ironic how a signal from outer space (an information code) would be considered a product of an intelligent source (aliens), while the DNA, as a very complex information code, must have been randomly assembled?

Please read Proinsias' link at http://www.teamseti.org/page.aspx?pid=1011. The determination of origin of an outer space signal has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPLEXITY (Somewhat apologetic for yelling but Proinsias has already argued against this reasoning - a counter argument should at least acknowledge the other viewpoint.). The determination of origin of an outer space signal is based on eliminating known natural sources (astronomy, given its exotic nature is not the best field for confident determination - see pulsars mentioned below)

Simple Signals

In fact, the signals actually sought by today’s SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. We’re not looking for intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens’ version of “I Love Lucy.” Our instruments are largely insensitive to the modulation – or message – that might be conveyed by an extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.

And yet we still advertise that, were we to find such a signal, we could reasonably conclude that there was intelligence behind it. It sounds as if this strengthens the argument made by the ID proponents. Our sought-after signal is hardly complex, and yet we’re still going to say that we’ve found extraterrestrials. If we can get away with that, why can’t they?

Well, it’s because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal – adead simple tone – is not complex; it’s artificial. Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add – for example, DNA’s junk and redundancy.

Consider pulsars – stellar objects that flash light and radio waves into space with impressive regularity. Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967. Of course, these little men didn’t have much to say. Regular pulses don’t convey any information – no more than the ticking of a clock. But the real kicker is something else: inefficiency. Pulsars flash over the entire spectrum. No matter where you tune your radio telescope, the pulsar can be heard. That’s bad design, because if the pulses were intended to convey some sort of message, it would be enormously more efficient (in terms of energy costs) to confine the signal to a very narrow band. Even the most efficient natural radio emitters, interstellar clouds of gas known as masers, are profligate. Their steady signals splash over hundreds of times more radio band than the type of transmissions sought by SETI.

Stu wrote:You mean like say computer code?

I'm not sure how this applies. Could you please elaborate? What are your natural and artificial references? I'll grant that computer code is designed. If I found a laptop in the desert, I would have no doubt that it is manmade. But you do not seem to be comparing actual items. Instead you seem to be arguing for the concept of design - an archaeologist looking at a possible human implement (shaped rock) considers whether natural forces are unlikely to produce such a shape (and whether humans might). The ID proponent is looking at silicon wafers and biological macromolecules and inferring design. This is a totally different argument. An argument analogous to the archaeologist would be examining a biological macromolecule and comparing it to molecules produced by natural means and trying to decide if natural means could have produced the macromolecule.

Stu wrote: You're possibly making the mistake (that many do) that ID proponents suggest everything in nature reveals design. It doesn't. There are some features within nature (like DNA) that resemble manmade, or intelligently designed, objects.

No, I am not making that mistake. Distinguishing a manmade gemstone from a natural one can be impossible. But you may be making the converse error. Just because some objects appear designed or resemble designed systems does not mean they are designed. There's a formation on Mars which resembles a human face. It doesn't follow that it was sculpted by intelligent beings.

Stu wrote:Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.

Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.

Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.

Step 2 needs elaboration. How does John make this determination? Presumably he examines Craig's artificial life form and compares it to natural life forms and observes some properties which make it inconsistent with known natural lifeforms. So how does this show natural life forms are designed? Again (I'm presuming because step 2 is missing any detail) it is the comparison with known natural and artificial objects which allows John to make his determination. If John instead observes some principle of design, then you will have to explain how he does this.
Step 3 is obviously correct. But the correctness of John's design inference does not validate his method. Even a stopped watch is correct once (or twice) a day.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Reactionary wrote:Isn't it rather ironic how a signal from outer space (an information code) would be considered a product of an intelligent source (aliens), while the DNA, as a very complex information code, must have been randomly assembled?

Please read Proinsias' link at http://www.teamseti.org/page.aspx?pid=1011. The determination of origin of an outer space signal has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPLEXITY (Somewhat apologetic for yelling but Proinsias has already argued against this reasoning - a counter argument should at least acknowledge the other viewpoint.). The determination of origin of an outer space signal is based on eliminating known natural sources (astronomy, given its exotic nature is not the best field for confident determination - see pulsars mentioned below)

Well we're talking around the point here.
What if SETI, or another group for that matter were to receive a complex "I love Lucy" signal -- could we not infer design?
Just because SETI limits itself to "simple signals" doesn't make the method itself unscientific, which is after all hat we are discussing -- design detection.

Sorry, I missed this post before.

Reactionary wrote:having heard what some naturalist scientists say about the topic, I got an impression that they know nearly everything. I guess it's the attitude...

There are more scientists doing research now than ever before. You might as well conclude they know less now than previously.

Reactionary wrote:accusing ID of making a God-of-the-gaps fallacy, not being aware that at the same time, you're commiting a science-of-the-gaps fallacy. How do you know that evolution will provide the answers about life? The truth is that at the moment, we don't know. All I'm saying is that we should be fair and do what a true skeptic would do - remain open-minded about the answer of the question of life.

This is a very good point. As I have asked before, at what point do you conclude that what remains unknown can not be determined scientifically rather than just something waiting to be discovered? Having said that, i think there is a difference between science-of-the-gaps and God-of-the-gaps; science gaps (what is unknown) have historically diminished as more science is done whereas this is accompanied by smaller gaps available for a God-of-the-gaps arguments. As I just said, this does not mean that we can extrapolate to some point in the future where science can explain every natural observation.

Reactionary wrote: science, by definition, deals with the observable and repeatable. ... If we research origins, that research can't be purely scientific, exactly because we can't go back in past to observe what happened and how everything was created. The only thing that remains is to make conclusions based on the evidence we have at this moment, which could be called "historical science" if we extend the definition, but it doesn't have the experimental aspect in it, and as such is prone to interpretations that often aren't objective.

This is a very restrictive view of science which almost all scientists would disagree with. At the one extreme, "historical science" is considered real science. No one has made a star, yet the basic mechanisms of stellar nucleosynthesis were worked out in the 1920's and 30's. These results are certainly not regarded as mere speculation. At the other extreme, no science experiment is truly "observable and repeatable" - atomic theory is well established yet no one has ever seen an atom (only various electronic or other manifestations attributed to atoms) and chemical reactions are never truly isolated from the rest of the world - pharmaceutical companies have occasionally been unable to reproduce a specific form of a drug and anyone who has ever done chemistry or other basic science laboratory work knows that results are not always reproducible.

Stu wrote:What if SETI, or another group for that matter were to receive a complex "I love Lucy" signal -- could we not infer design?
Just because SETI limits itself to "simple signals" doesn't make the method itself unscientific, which is after all hat we are discussing -- design detection.

Of course an "I love Lucy" signal would imply design. But why? Precisely because natural astrophysical processes do not produce "I love Lucy" signals. This does not follow from any evidence of design. It follows from what we know of natural and artificial signals.

But how does "design detection" work? You receive some signal from outer space. How do you determine if it shows design?

And how does a designed universe differ from an undesigned universe?

sandy_mcd wrote:I'm not sure how this applies. Could you please elaborate? What are your natural and artificial references? I'll grant that computer code is designed. If I found a laptop in the desert, I would have no doubt that it is manmade. But you do not seem to be comparing actual items. Instead you seem to be arguing for the concept of design - an archaeologist looking at a possible human implement (shaped rock) considers whether natural forces are unlikely to produce such a shape (and whether humans might). The ID proponent is looking at silicon wafers and biological macromolecules and inferring design. This is a totally different argument. An argument analogous to the archaeologist would be examining a biological macromolecule and comparing it to molecules produced by natural means and trying to decide if natural means could have produced the macromolecule.

The reference is function.

* the genetic system is a pre-existing operating system;
* the specific genetic program (genome) is an application;
* the native language has codon-based encryption system;
* the codes are read by enzyme computers with their own operating system;
* each enzyme’s output is to another operating system in a ribosome;
* codes are decrypted and output to tRNA computers;
* each codon-specified amino acid is transported to a protein construction site; and
* in each cell, there are multiple operating systems, multiple programming languages, encoding/decoding hardware and software, specialized communications systems, error detection/correction systems, specialized input/output for organelle control and feedback, and a variety of specialized “devices” to accomplish the tasks of life.

There's a reason why Bill Gates says human DNA is analogous to a computer program, just far far more advanced than anything we have dreamt of creating.

Building circuit boards using DNA scaffolding
There have been a few breakthroughs in recent years that hold the promise of sustaining Moore’s Law for some time to come. These include attaching molecules to silicon and replacing copper interconnects with graphene. Now IBM are proposing a new way to pack more power and speed into computer chips by using DNA molecules as scaffolding for transistors fabricated with carbon nanotubes and silicon wires.

The new approach developed by scientists at IBM and the California Institute of Technology uses DNA molecules as scaffolding or miniature circuit boards for the precise assembly of components such as millions of carbon nanotubes, nanowires and nanoparticles, that could be deposited and self-assembled into precise patterns by sticking to the DNA molecules.

No, I am not making that mistake. Distinguishing a manmade gemstone from a natural one can be impossible.

And that's precisely the point, we're not talking about gemstones (although we can tell manmade diamonds apart from naturally formed ones), or faces on Mars. You have ignored much of what I've said.

But you may be making the converse error. Just because some objects appear designed or resemble designed systems does not mean they are designed. There's a formation on Mars which resembles a human face. It doesn't follow that it was sculpted by intelligent beings.

No, please read hat I said earlier. I never said just because some objects appear or resemble design it demands a design inference.

Let's say we received a radio signal consisting of dots and dashes, that upon closer study represent numbers, specifically prime numbers from 1 - 300; we would be well within our rights to assume design rather than simply write it off as random electromagnetic noise.

Step 2 needs elaboration. How does John make this determination? Presumably he examines Craig's artificial life form and compares it to natural life forms and observes some properties which make it inconsistent with known natural lifeforms. So how does this show natural life forms are designed? Again (I'm presuming because step 2 is missing any detail) it is the comparison with known natural and artificial objects which allows John to make his determination. If John instead observes some principle of design, then you will have to explain how he does this.
Step 3 is obviously correct. But the correctness of John's design inference does not validate his method. Even a stopped watch is correct once (or twice) a day.

We could go into detail, but the point being made was this -- the design inference, and the method employed to detect design is well within scientific methodology.

As Byblos stated:

Cryptanalysis, Anthropology, Archeology, Forensics, S.E.T.I. or a similar body (think the movie Contact),

all use a form of design detection.

sandy_mcd wrote:Of course an "I love Lucy" signal would imply design. But why? Precisely because natural astrophysical processes do not produce "I love Lucy" signals. This does not follow from any evidence of design. It follows from what we know of natural and artificial signals.

But how does "design detection" work? You receive some signal from outer space. How do you determine if it shows design?

The universe is filled with electromagnetic radiation, are you suggesting that a simple message like that could not occur by chance, given the fact that a few monkeys and typewriters could supposedly create something as marvelous as Shakespeare?

And how does a designed universe differ from an undesigned universe?

Fine-tuning?

"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the Universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state." - Professor Stephen Hawking

Just one of many many many extremely fine-tuned conditions required for our universe to exist at all.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Reactionary wrote:accusing ID of making a God-of-the-gaps fallacy, not being aware that at the same time, you're commiting a science-of-the-gaps fallacy. How do you know that evolution will provide the answers about life? The truth is that at the moment, we don't know. All I'm saying is that we should be fair and do what a true skeptic would do - remain open-minded about the answer of the question of life.

This is a very good point. As I have asked before, at what point do you conclude that what remains unknown can not be determined scientifically rather than just something waiting to be discovered? Having said that, i think there is a difference between science-of-the-gaps and God-of-the-gaps; science gaps (what is unknown) have historically diminished as more science is done whereas this is accompanied by smaller gaps available for a God-of-the-gaps arguments. As I just said, this does not mean that we can extrapolate to some point in the future where science can explain every natural observation.

But we've already established that God-of-the-gaps arguments are fallacious, so their number is irrelevant for the case for God.
What is important is, that solid theistic arguments have withstood the test of time.

I recommend this article, as well: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/go ... _gaps.html

sandy_mcd wrote:

Reactionary wrote: science, by definition, deals with the observable and repeatable. ... If we research origins, that research can't be purely scientific, exactly because we can't go back in past to observe what happened and how everything was created. The only thing that remains is to make conclusions based on the evidence we have at this moment, which could be called "historical science" if we extend the definition, but it doesn't have the experimental aspect in it, and as such is prone to interpretations that often aren't objective.

This is a very restrictive view of science which almost all scientists would disagree with. At the one extreme, "historical science" is considered real science. No one has made a star, yet the basic mechanisms of stellar nucleosynthesis were worked out in the 1920's and 30's. These results are certainly not regarded as mere speculation. At the other extreme, no science experiment is truly "observable and repeatable" - atomic theory is well established yet no one has ever seen an atom (only various electronic or other manifestations attributed to atoms) and chemical reactions are never truly isolated from the rest of the world - pharmaceutical companies have occasionally been unable to reproduce a specific form of a drug and anyone who has ever done chemistry or other basic science laboratory work knows that results are not always reproducible.

Well, I was replying to the quote:

Ivellious wrote:Here's the thing...science tries to explain the natural world around us using evidence and observations together with experimentation.

You see, I was told that God doesn't fit the "scientific" scenario, due to His inobservability. But where is the edge of science then, if you can't see an atom but assume it exists because of its electronic manifestations? I don't doubt the existence of atoms, but in the same way, I don't see the Designer of this universe but I assume He exists, because throughout my life I've never seen something come to existence without a cause, out of nothing, nor have I seen (or heard about) biological organisms emerging in nature, or evolving. I think it's a double standard at its finest. At the one extreme, unfalsifiable ideas such as the "multiverse" are presented as science, and at the other - you may be mocked if you believe that there is even a slight possibility that this universe, and the life it contains, was designed.

sandy_mcd wrote:Of course an "I love Lucy" signal would imply design. But why? Precisely because natural astrophysical processes do not produce "I love Lucy" signals.

Natural processes, as far as we know, don't produce life either.

Besides, hypothetically speaking, if those who found or researched such a signal were holding to a belief that aliens don't exist (in order to justify their philosophical position, for instance), don't you think they wouldn't come up with a good cop-out? They could always resort to our brain trying to explain natural patterns, or say that natural astrophysical processes, in fact, can produce such signals, just as an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters could eventually produce a work of art. Stranger things have allegedly happened - if sentient beings can evolve from pond scum, who says that a signal to which we humans attribute significance, can't accidentally come to being?

Reactionary wrote:You see, I was told that God doesn't fit the "scientific" scenario, due to His inobservability. But where is the edge of science then, if you can't see an atom but assume it exists because of its electronic manifestations? I don't doubt the existence of atoms, but in the same way, I don't see the Designer of this universe but I assume He exists, because throughout my life I've never seen something come to existence without a cause, out of nothing, nor have I seen (or heard about) biological organisms emerging in nature, or evolving. I think it's a double standard at its finest. At the one extreme, unfalsifiable ideas such as the "multiverse" are presented as science, and at the other - you may be mocked if you believe that there is even a slight possibility that this universe, and the life it contains, was designed.
...
Natural processes, as far as we know, don't produce life either.
...
Besides, hypothetically speaking, if those who found or researched such a signal were holding to a belief that aliens don't exist (in order to justify their philosophical position, for instance), don't you think they wouldn't come up with a good cop-out? They could always resort to our brain trying to explain natural patterns, or say that natural astrophysical processes, in fact, can produce such signals, just as an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters could eventually produce a work of art. Stranger things have allegedly happened - if sentient beings can evolve from pond scum, who says that a signal to which we humans attribute significance, can't accidentally come to being?

I would say the multiverse idea is pretty much the edge of science. What good is an untestable, non-predicting concept? While atoms can't be seen, the atomic model simplifies the explanation of observable events and makes predictions which can be tested. From a standpoint of describing our natural world, the concept of a Designer is similar to the idea of multiverses. Neither really explain nor predict anything measurable (in this world; obviously a Designer could have left traces if desired).
There is certainly no proof of abiogenesis. At this point in scientific knowledge, not enough is known to answer this question definitively one way or the other. There doesn't seem to be any reason it couldn't have happened. The fit of continental borders and similar rocks/fossils suggested continents were once joined but it took a long time for a mechanism to produce such results was found. Why can't the same be true here?
I've never been a fan of the monkey theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem). An episode of I Love Lucy appearing in random static has to be as least as unlikely. Your proposed researcher above would undoubtedly not ascribe such observations to aliens or astrophysical processes but instead conclude the signal was contaminated by a hoaxer or cabling mishap. You are quite correct in that observations will never trump deeply held positions. [See history of Millikan's oil drop experiment for example.]

Stu wrote:You have ignored much of what I've said.

I've read everything you've written. It seems to me that some of it does not apply to what I am trying to discuss.
To summarize:
1) ID is the idea that some objects/systems which have been designed contain observable elements, irrespective of comparison to natural or artificial objects/systems, which demonstrate design.
2) Scientists in a number of disciplines use ID.
[Please modify as need be.]
I contend that
2) is false. Scientists in these disciplines compare unknowns to known artificial/nature objects/systems and known physical laws. They do not detect or measure any intrinsic design properties.
1) is almost surely false. I've yet to find any comprehensible (to me) explanation of how this idea works.

Stu wrote: say we received a radio signal consisting of dots and dashes, that upon closer study represent numbers, specifically prime numbers from 1 - 300; we would be well within our rights to assume design rather than simply write it off as random electromagnetic noise.

True, because we know that the statistical probability of noise producing this signal is extremely low. It is not because of any special significance of the prime numbers from 1 - 293. It is what we already know about random electromagnetic noise that lets us conclude design. [Sunflower head patterns show the Fibonacci sequence http://environment-clean-generations.bl ... mbers.html. Does this prove design? If not, why not?]

Stu wrote:Just one of many many many extremely fine-tuned conditions required for our universe to exist at all.

I asked for a comparison of a designed vs a non-designed universe. The universe could just as easily have been designed with a different set of physical laws so that fine-tuning wasn't necessary. I want to know what properties we measure to decide if a universe is designed. For a radio signal from afar, we could use either an artificial signal type or some evidence of a non-naturally structured signal containing recognizable information. Again, these are non-natural, artificial patterns. We know (are extremely confident) they do not occur naturally but are the product of intelligence. We are not detecting design, we are recognizing something we already have assumed is designed.
What would a natural, undesigned universe look like? What would an artificial, designed universe look like? Knowing this would give us some basis for deciding whether our universe is designed. How does fine-tuning address these questions?

[Detailed analogy between cells and computers deleted as I can't figure out what it is suppose to illustrate.]

Stu wrote:... John ... concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.

Stu wrote:The reference is function.

Stu wrote:We could go into detail, but the point being made was this -- the design inference, and the method employed to detect design is well within scientific methodology.

Okay, how about some detail? What does function have to do with design? If I describe an object/system, what will the ID'er want to know in order to decide if it designed?
For example, I have something I tell time with. Is it designed or not designed? What more information is required to answer the question?

sandy_mcd wrote:I've read everything you've written. It seems to me that some of it does not apply to what I am trying to discuss.

Well to be more specific, I'm referring to what I said here:

"You're possibly making the mistake (that many do) that ID proponents suggest everything in nature reveals design. It doesn't. There are some features within nature (like DNA) that resemble manmade, or intelligently designed, objects."

You went on to say:

"But you may be making the converse error. Just because some objects appear designed or resemble designed systems does not mean they are designed. There's a formation on Mars which resembles a human face. It doesn't follow that it was sculpted by intelligent beings."

I specifically stated that not all features in nature call for a design inference; you then went on to explain what I had just said, namely that just because something gives the appearance of design is not enough to warrant the inference. In other words ID proponents don't apply design willy-nilly, ie. like yours Mars face example; whereas the stone carvings of the four US Presidents on Mt Rushmore would more than likely qualify.

To summarize:
1) ID is the idea that some objects/systems which have been designed contain observable elements, irrespective of comparison to natural or artificial objects/systems, which demonstrate design.
2) Scientists in a number of disciplines use ID.
[Please modify as need be.]
I contend that
2) is false. Scientists in these disciplines compare unknowns to known artificial/nature objects/systems and known physical laws. They do not detect or measure any intrinsic design properties.
1) is almost surely false. I've yet to find any comprehensible (to me) explanation of how this idea works.

Regarding 1:

I'll repeat what I said about DNA earlier as it addresses that point directly, ie. DNA and it's many component molecular machines and parts is analogous to a complex integrated computer system.

- the genetic system is a pre-existing operating system;
- the specific genetic program (genome) is an application;
- the native language has codon-based encryption system;
- the codes are read by enzyme computers with their own operating system;
- each enzyme’s output is to another operating system in a ribosome;
- codes are decrypted and output to tRNA computers;
- each codon-specified amino acid is transported to a protein construction site; and
- in each cell, there are multiple operating systems, multiple programming languages, encoding/decoding hardware and software, specialized communications systems, error detection/correction systems, specialized input/output for organelle control and feedback, and a variety of specialized “devices” to accomplish the tasks of life.

Just as Bill Gates makes the same comparison, and why he researches DNA as a way to improve his intelligently designed human inventions (software).

Regarding 2:

- Well let's start with Cryptanalysis; the study of methods for deciphering encrypted data by means of searching for patterns, repetition and mathematical anomalies. So searching for design in amongst what is otherwise considered unintelligent or nonsense data.

- Archeology studies human history. Now of course the methods employed by ID are not always utilised in archeology. For instance one could safely assume that the pyramids were constructed by an intelligent source without much hesitation.
But what of more primitive civilisations, or those that have long since succumbed to the rigors of nature.

When is a curved bone simply a bone, and when is it a primitive fishing hook?
When is a smooth pointy rock simply the by-product of endless exposure to the elements, and when does it become an ancient spear-head?
Why do we infer design on Stonehenge; rather than concluding those stones came to rest in position by nothing more than natural forces, and to signify importance the local inhabitants simply removed the many other boulders and stacked formations around it to highlight that particular structure?
Can we attribute intelligence to 2 plum trees planted in a row; how about 5 in a row; what 2 rows of 3?

- Forensic science uses a range of methods to investigate legal matters.
Let's say there's a man asleep in his house. A fire starts in the living room, and during the night he dies from smoke inhalation. In order to determine cause we also need to determine whether there was intent or just plain ol bad luck.
A burnt out candle could possibly indicate an accident.
Minute traces of an accelerant on the other hand, strategically placed near an electrical socket would indicate an intelligent agent, that might otherwise simply have been attributed to an electrical fault.

True, because we know that the statistical probability of noise producing this signal is extremely low. It is not because of any special significance of the prime numbers from 1 - 293. It is what we already know about random electromagnetic noise that lets us conclude design. [Sunflower head patterns show the Fibonacci sequence http://environment-clean-generations.bl ... mbers.html. Does this prove design? If not, why not?

What? Of course it surrounds the significance of the prime numbers! Remove the prime numbers from the equation and what do you have. Nothing. The numbers provide it meaning.

It's a combination of factors, what we know about random electromagnetic noise; the pattern or code produced by the dots and dashes; and the prime numbers and information revealed by their decoding.

I asked for a comparison of a designed vs a non-designed universe. The universe could just as easily have been designed with a different set of physical laws so that fine-tuning wasn't necessary. I want to know what properties we measure to decide if a universe is designed. For a radio signal from afar, we could use either an artificial signal type or some evidence of a non-naturally structured signal containing recognizable information. Again, these are non-natural, artificial patterns. We know (are extremely confident) they do not occur naturally but are the product of intelligence. We are not detecting design, we are recognizing something we already have assumed is designed.
What would a natural, undesigned universe look like? What would an artificial, designed universe look like? Knowing this would give us some basis for deciding whether our universe is designed. How does fine-tuning address these questions?

Unfortunately I'm no cosmologist

If the universe hinged on say one, two or even three factors the fine-tuning argument might be called into question. But that is far from the case, and the scale of the fine-tuning itself is so extraordinarily sensitive. Instead what we witness is a universe so finely balanced, by all rights it really should not exist.
You ask what the difference might be between a chance and designed universe? Certainly for me the amount of fine-tuning; and specifically the integrated nature thereof. It's not simply a list of "settings" independent of one another, but rather most are reliant on others, without one the others would collapse, all supposedly formed by random chance at the initiation of the big bang.

Just one or two:
- One requirement is a strong nuclear force that binds atoms together. "If the strength of this force were to decrease by just 1 part in 10,000 billion billion billion billion, the only element left in the universe would be hydrogen."

- Another is the force of gravity.
"Imagine a ruler divided into one inch increments, stretched across the entire length of the universe, or 14 billion light years.

So if the ruler represents the possible range for gravity.
The setting for the strength of gravity just happens to be situated in the right place so that life is possible.

If you were to change the force of gravity by moving the setting just one inch compared to the entire width of the universe -- the effect on life would be catastrophic." Fine-tuned, I think so.

Okay, how about some detail? What does function have to do with design? If I describe an object/system, what will the ID'er want to know in order to decide if it designed?
For example, I have something I tell time with. Is it designed or not designed? What more information is required to answer the question?

I think we need to take a few steps back here. My reason for posting this was as a rebuttal to the oft-used “Who Designed the Designer” argument, not what criteria are required for a design inference. So:

Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.
Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.
Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.

In other words, whatever the reason for the design inference -- say Mr Venter inserted his name; left a code in the form of Celera Genomics; revealed coding commonly used in software programs; etc. -- if it were correct, if it were obvious, it would not matter that John didn't know who Craig Venter was, or who designed Venter himself.

As Dawkins said:

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer”
Richard Dawkins 1982, 94:130)

Bet he regrets making that comment

Stu wrote: My reason for posting this was as a rebuttal to the oft-used “Who Designed the Designer” argument, not what criteria are required for a design inference.

Sorry. What I am interested in here is how the design inference works. Given some system/object, how does one determine if it has been designed?

Stu wrote:Can we attribute intelligence to 2 plum trees planted in a row; how about 5 in a row; what 2 rows of 3?)

The number doesn't matter; I think attributing intelligence to a row of trees is just plum crazy.