While I see your point of being generous in accepting that :

we can see that “the so-called Design of the universe is only apparent design” is a logically possible proposition in the broad sense.

. . . I am not so sure that the “we can see that” is well-warranted.

[Had you in effect said that you grant that, for the sake of the current argument, and to address the empirical issue that bears on the matter as well, that would be a different question.)

For, the inference to a designoid -- as opposed to designed -- universe plainly and logically entails that all its phenomena are in the end reducible to chance and/or blind but regular natural forces: Plato's [The Laws, Bk 10, cf my always linked App 2, and the July 6 thread on explanatory adequacy] and latterly Monod’s Chance + Necessity.

This must therefore include our own “apparent mind” and “apparent reasoning,” however long the blind cause-effect chains at work. In short, we are right back at the classic problem that we here are undermining the basic credibility of our own minds. [Whether the conditioning behind the "apparent reasoning and communicating mind," is bio-physical [cf here Johnson on Crick on how it all boils down to neural network noise!], socio-cultural, political/ideological, psychological/ behavioural or economic has but little relevance, apart from providing a menu of various ways of taking the deliverances of the “apparent mind” out of the realm of that which is credibly logical or truth-anchored.)

But of course evolutionary materialism advocates hotly deny this when the knife cuts their way, even though they can often be seen trying to discredit others for being deluded or ignorant or stupid or worse. [E.g. consider the common idea that ID thought "must" be religiously or politically motivated rather than being a serious logical-factual issue.]

When we turn to the world of fact, we see further that all cases of complex, funcitonally specified information and/or irreducibly complex structures that we directly know the causal story of, are the product of design.

We have no good reason to beg the question by dropping agents from the triad chance, necessity and agency at the point of cosmo-genesis. So, when we see the level of finely tuned, complex and tightly integrated systems structures and underlying laws, we have very good reason indeed to infer that the design is not just apparent but deceptive in fact, but that it is most likely apparent because it is real.

That is a revisable opinion, but it is not one without warrant as the best current explanation of the cosmos we see.

[An excellent test of just how well one has thought through the matter, consider oneself before God at the end of history, and having to explain to God why on the evidence that was before you in the cosmos without and the mind and conscience within, you had good warrant for the proposition that he was not real, and was not the Architect of the cosmos. If your current case could not stand up to that scenario -- imaginary though it may well be -- then, are you simply being selectively hyper-skeptical because the possible implications of the universe reflecting the handiwork of an Architect is repellent to you, for whatever reason? If you doubt me on the force of this point, reflect on the classic account of the exchange on Mars Hill in Athens circa 50 AD, and its consequences over the following centuries in the Hellenistic-Roman world.]

GEM of TKI

PS: ID Net, do you feel able to give us a bit more of a definition yet?

My post was merely to explain why the apparent design hypothesis doesn’t work in the real world.

Again, how do you detect no-design?

My suggestion to Dr. Dembski to look at it from the negative side (if he hasn’t already done so) is always pertinent in cases like this where a negative can be used to demonstrate a positive.

The rest of my post’s topics are still exciting and pertinent fields of study that I believe will eventually help wipe out the standard materialist stance altogether through logical implications.

Indeed, logic itself presupposes absolute truth; But materialism cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes. However as soon as the existence of an absolute Mind (call it God) is admitted logical absolutes suddenly become understandable & explainable.

What does it mean for a state of affairs to have propensity? Is this dependent on the agent observing the state of affairs or is it more like the “effects will tell us something about the cause” reasoning, the latter being a more objective satement about causality, the former more subjective?

Actually, what I claimed is that the position is possible in the broad logical sense. I merely making a fine logical point about the structure of the summary statement. Broad logical possibility is simply any proposition that does not entail a logical contradiction. An example of a logically impossible proposition is that “square-circles exist.” With this in mind we can see that “the so-called Design of the universe is only apparent design” is a logically possible proposition in the broad sense. The point that Dembski and others have made is that, although broadly possible, as an actual explanation of the empirics it is woefully inadequate and an accounting of the actual probabilities involved strongly suggest (or reveal) Design. (A position I agree with)

The summary statment says it will prove that Design is the only “logical, valid inference.” What I think the author means is that Design is the only ‘reasonable inference or only reasonable explanation.’ Logic is an actual science of inferences, I hate it when atheists/materialists use the word to dub whatever they are saying as ‘the only logical position’ and I want ID advocates to avoid the same habit.

I can see the abiguity with the way I worded my post. When I say “I believe (1) is true,” I mean that I think the ‘apparent design’ position avoids internal contradictions (unlike ‘square-circle’). Certainly the concept is coherent, just as the atheist proposition “God does not exist” is coherent, but is it true? I think ID has shown that to believe in philosophical naturalism, dispite the mathematically rigorous evidence to the contrary, is a retreat into irrationality.

Finally, forgive the long post but I want to be perfectly clear, there are different ways that one can falsify something: (1) show that the concepts are internally inconsistent (i.e. entail contradiction(s)), or (2) although the premises are true, the conclusion does not follow from them, or (3) one or more of the premises are false (usually because one can marshal contrary evidence). I think ID falsifies naturalism quite nicely with (3) and one need not make the more difficult claim that there is an internal contradiction in the concept of naturalism (which the summary statement implied, although I realize the point of the book is to support ID against naturalism with mode #3).

Solid point.

Are we REALLY, REALLY listening?

GEM of TKI

PS: Seems I hit on one of those filter words by accident just now . . .

Transitive or transitory complexity?

I find the concept that such a system points beyond itself, i.e takes its structure (hence complexity) from a purpose that lies beyond it, harks back to the classical understanding of cause.

Using somewhat more familiar terms than the classical thinkers usually did:

1] Material Cause: it is a necessary condition of an object or phenomenon that it has the materials and forces that enable it to exist and work as advertised.

2] Actuating cause: something has to directly trigger the relevant patterns of structure and behaviour.

3] Purpose: Such entities point to a goal, i.e they exist and operate for a reason.

4] Agent: thus, there is an agent who exerts reasoned intelligence to actuate the object or process, taking advantage of relevant forces and materials etc, to achieve his or her goal.

The real debate is over whether the materials and forces acting without such direction, can achieve the sort of functionally specified, often irreducibly complex structures and processes that are of interest. DESIGNED vs DESIGNOID.

–> It is highly relevant to observe that in EVERY case where we directly know the cause, complex specified information-exhibiting systems are designed. [And, given remarks by Bob in the July 6 thread on explanatory adequacy, being open to the possibility of agency alongside natural regularities and chance as possible causal forces is not to presuppose an agent, begging the question.]

–> Next, on the important cases in view, those who reject design are forced to exert selectively hyper-skeptical criteria, i.e if their worldviews and agendas were not on the line in these particular cases, they would never dream of suggesting that anything other than an agent were at work.

–> On this, we can look at the prevalence of considering the alternatives: blind forces and/or chance vs agent action in a lot of statistical inference testing.

–> Similarly, when we see long strings of digital information that make sense, we do not seriously accept the concept that absent absolute proof to the contrary, such “must” be viewed as the product of lucky noise. [Cf my always linked.]

In short, the balance of the case on the merits is not hard to see, and transit-ive/-ory complexity makes sense as a reference to that overarching issue that complex, functionally specified entities normally reflect design and point beyond themselves to a purpose they target.

Food for thought.

GEM of TKI

PS: Digital strings is broader than binary digital strings. Let’s not forget Babbage’s “computer” was a 10-state element machine.

those states of affairs which most clearly manifest design point beyond themselves to a broarder picture in which their existence is explained. p39

Examples are a parking arrow, a system of canals, a series of prime numbers, or a sentence.

There is a relationship with specification and with irreducibility because these both point beyond the objects themselves.

The greater the complexity of the transitory complex system, the lower the probability that chance is causing the illusion of design.