The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

For example, how to you prove [emphasis added] intentionality if you didn't already know something to be intentional?

(We're taught not to use the P word in science, but its whatever at this point.)

Intentional is a great addition to my definition because it focuses on the aspect of intelligence that's most relevant to design. It allows us to draw some very important distinctions. To use my beaver analogy, we can conclude that a dam was designed because our hypothetical beaver intended to make it, but that a footprint it left behind was not designed because it did not intend to make that. Or perhaps it did intend to make a footprint but not the dam. As you know, my only focus is whether something can be designed, not whether it was designed (which you keep ignoring). I agree, intentions are hard to infer; but they can, however, be communicated. And I've argued that plans, models and simulations are observable representations of intentions.

ps. I wonder if you are confusing "being falsified" with being falsifiable? It is not enough for you that my definitions are specific, because you also want me to be wrong. So you will deny that my theory is falsifiable unless I falsify it.

You cannot, for example, turn this into a description on what *observations* are required to show something is designed.

The change clause in "intentional initiation of change" means that if you recreate, replicate, or duplicate a thing, then you have in effect "redesigned" that thing (reproduced a similar change in the world). In other words, you have shown it to be designable.