Intelligent Design

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I'm sorry... how did you determine that an atom is designed, again?

Okay, I get it now.
The problem with my usage of design is that it can be interpreted as however I like. Right?
Because I can look at an apple and say that it is designed because of the obvious constraints imposed on it.
But I already said before that there is an obvious difference between a design and a design achieved from random events or natural causes.

Nature is not intelligent, it's a construct created by humans by which an absence of intelligence can be referred to. Natural causes are therefore no force of design, because that word requires intelligence - so why do you insist on using "design" where only "nature" or "natural" is appropriate?

How about this:
Fixed constraints intelligently imposed on a system implies a design.

So consider a rock.
What makes a rock you find on the ground that is the identical to a rock molded by a human in a lab any different?
After all the rock you find on the ground will have the exact same constraints as that of the rock you molded in the lab right?
The main difference is that the rock made in the lab had it's constraints imposed onto itself by an intelligent being whereas the rock in the road had it's constraints imposed onto it by natural causes or random events.
Another difference is that the rock made in the lab will have it's constraints fixed whereas the rock in the ground got it's constraints(like shape, size etc) the way it is through lots of natural causes and is ever changing.

Main points:

* Design implies intelligent action.
* Resemblance of a design due to natural causes is not a design because of its fluctuating constraints.

Like take hydrogen for example, it's atomic number, protons and other constraints are fixed.
Exactly like the constraints on the rock made in a lab are fixed. If the constraints on the rock are altered by another intelligent being then it becomes another design, but if the constraints are altered by natural causes or random events then it is no longer a design.

So ask yourself this,
Has the constraints of something like an element like Hydrogen changed in the history of earth or even our universe? No?
Well then we know it's constraints are fixed.
If it is fixed then it is imposed. (Like assigning an integer variable in a program the value 5. It is imposed.)
If it is imposed there was an intelligent being responsible.
If there was an intelligent being responsible, then it is a design.

Do I win something already? Or am I still not making sense? :Bounce Ball:

Not really sure what you are trying to say with this, but if you really think that complex organisms imply "intelligently fixed constraints" and "design", no that doesn't sell. There is no evidence that anyone designed any biological species at any level lower down than breeding. There is no evidence that our biological functions are the result of any intelligent planning, and there are certainly no fixed constraints on our reproducing genes, and ever-changing genes.

As for changes to the structure of the hydrogen atom, this has happened quite often, leaving at least 106 new elements to build planets with from dead, exploded stars. The elements don't happen to be life forms of short-term existence and the mandatory call to reproduce, therefore some of the universe became carbon and other elements while the hydrogen which did not change could go on being hydrogen. Now this dialogue is getting a bit strange...