(May 29, 2014 at 3:46 pm)Heywood Wrote:(May 29, 2014 at 3:41 pm)FreeTony Wrote: That's not science. Even if you demonstrate "if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI" this does not mean "If we see high levels of CSI it must have been designed".
This is your logic applied to flying animals: "if an animal can fly, it will have wings" therefore when we observe an animal with wings, it must be able to fly. This of course doesn't work in the case of flightless birds.
Can't the same criticism be leveled against evolution?
For instance could one say "Evolution is not science, Even if you demonstrate "multiple evolutionary pathways", this does not mean it must have evolved"?
I don't think it is unreasonable to look for objective ways to differentiate designed things from those which are undesigned. I'm not convinced looking for high levels of CSI are a good way to do it, but it is, in my opinion, a good faith attempt at solving a problem.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The equivalent would be "just because it has been demonstrated that organisms evolve by natural selection, it does not mean this particular organism evolved by this means". Horses evolved primarily due to natural selection, then via selective breeding. We will likely get to the stage where we could design a simple organism ,and then produce it. This doesn't mean therefore that we ourselves were designed.
Creationists think every single thing in the universe was designed, yet they also claim to be able to be able to tell if something is not designed, despite that fact they've never supposedly encountered something that is not designed.
