The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[polymath257]

It seems that nobody is making an actual, evidence-based, argument here.

Replace evidence-based with falsifiable. And though we might not agree, we'll at least be on the same page speaking the same language.

Since falsifiability is based on being able to make observations that affect the probability that a position is correct, this seems to be a terminological distinction with no actual substance.

OK, so what criterion has been presented that is falsifiable and can reasonably be linked to design?

---

If everything is designed, with nothing to compare it to(so we don't know what not designed looks like) then what actual evidence do we have of design?

Notice the reverse argument can be inserted into your question: If everything is natural with nothing to compare it to, then what evidence do we have for naturalism?

Are there things within the universe that are NOT designed? Most people would say that there are. So, by what crietia do we distinguish between those things that are not designed and those that are?

---

Replace evidence-based with falsifiable. And though we might not agree, we'll at least be on the same page speaking the same language.

Not everything can neatly fit into falsiability criteria. Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability. Because you can always say something follows a design while others may disagree it does. Falsifiable criteria are applicable to binary result based evidence (black vs white swans.)

This is a common issue in some areas of science and it isn't a fundamental problem. In practice, there *are* differences between things that are designed and those that are not, at least when dealing with designers from the Earth's biosphere. Some things happen naturally without the intervention of life and others do not. Some can happen both ways---in such cases, it can be more a judgement call or simply left undecided.

It is a *good* thing that things can be fit into binary criteria. That is how knowledge is separated from mere fancy.

So, the goal should be to make design more precise so it becomes falsifiable. In those situations where it cannot, it should not be the default assumption.

---

It is an obscure and incomprehensible concept when you assign it as a product of an almighty designer that you have not even proven even exists.

I assigned it as a product of intelligence not God. I don't particularly think you need gods to show the universe can be designed. We design many worlds ourselves—have you played RDR2 recently?

But I agree the conversation does eventually have to focus on a particular designer.

And, more precisely, on characteristics that separate those things that are products of intention and those that are not. For *human* designers 9or creatures related to humans), this can be done in a great many situations.

The problem is that if we use the human criteria, the answer is that the vast majority of the universe is NOT designed. And that seems to both many people.

But those *wanting* to find design can give no criteria that can distinguish designed from non-designed artifacts outside of the few things related to the Earth's biosphere.