Maybe. But what tools did a designer use in creating the universe? Our concept of tools may not exactly match what the designer has available. Darth Vader and the Emperor used a method called the “Force.” If such a thing was possible, what would be the tool there? The Force?

Some claim telekinesis may be possible. It doesn’t seem possible with humans but who knows there may be others out there with powers we can only imagine.

Maybe in another galaxy far, far away.

” I’m saying that if we see characteristics A, B, and C in an artifact we have determined to be designed, that tells us something about the designer. If we find those characteristics are shared across a set of designed artifacts, that tells us even more.”

I would agree here. Yay! From this paragraph at least, you appear to approach it from a “design evidence first” instead of “assumption of characteristics of some arbitrary designer”….other than what we would already assume…..intelligence, purposefulness, choice-making.

“Why? The Judeo-Christian God is omnipotent. He could design the universe any way he wanted, by definition.”

Yes, I agree. The Judeo-Christian God, being omnipotent, could have created a universe with no life or with no intelligent life, or a universe that would be different to a degree that life would not be possible. The universe could have been much different. The fact that it appears so optimally suited for such a wide range of earthly life and scientific observability should clue you in about the motives and care of God.
In my opinion, and using your line of reasoning, the universe appearing as it does with significant evidence of fine-tuning for intelligent life would seem to tell us something about the designer; That God cares enough about those intelligent beings for which the universe is designed, so those intelligent beings can enjoy the universe, observe it, admire it and study it.

When somebody asks me “who or what is the designer?”..I always say…”ID presents a scientific inference for design, while my own personal, theological assumption is that the Judeo-Christian God is the designer”.

Khan @ 76

“the designer must have the physical tools necessary to bring his design to fruition.”

What if the designer created all the physical tools….from nothing?

“Detection of design requires some assumptions about the nature of the designer”

Yes, I agree. The designer must have intelligence.

Anything else?

the designer must have the physical tools necessary to bring his design to fruition.

Yes, I agree. The designer must have intelligence.

Anything else?

I just want to make sure i understand what you’re implying. Are you implying that we should ask..”IF (G)god exists, then such (G)god would have characteristics A, B & C. If this is true, then we would expect the appearances of design A, B & C.” ??

Not at all. I’m saying that if we see characteristics A, B, and C in an artifact we have determined to be designed, that tells us something about the designer. If we find those characteristics are shared across a set of designed artifacts, that tells us even more.

Well that’s a no-brainer. In the case of the apparent design of the universe, if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then we would expect to such God to design a universe the way we see it.

Why? The Judeo-Christian God is omnipotent. He could design the universe any way he wanted, by definition.

Let’s consider an assumption of a supposed designer. It would be intelligent.

What does that mean, though? Are there intelligences other than human intelligences? If so, what is the nature of those intelligences and how would that impact the designs they create?

It would be purposeful. It would make choices. Dawkin’s intelligent aliens could be a likely candidate for that. Seems to me it is more relevant to recognize the minimal characteristics of design, rather than the characteristics of the designer.

That’s exactly what can’t be done in a vacuum. Detection of design requires some assumptions about the nature of the designer. As I keep asking, how can we say that the flagella is designed but a rock is not unless we make some implicit assumptions about the designer?

We already have a minimal set of characteristics for design, as demonstrated by human intelligence.

Those suffice for identifying design by humans or human-like intelligences. If the designer is God, making those assumptions is inappropriate (and, by some lights, heretical).

JJ

This information can be used to generate testable models of the designer’s capabilities and limitations.

The outcome of design demonstrates abilities, but not limitations. A human designer can create an abacus and Pentium. A skilled artist can also write his name in the dirt with a stick. Can we infer limitations from what we observe?
The only

“The problem is that we cannot detect design without making at least some assumptions about the nature of the designer. If ID theory is scientific, those assumptions cannot include non-natural characteristics.”

In effect, you are suggesting that ID is a tautological exercise and therefore cannot really be an inferential science. A tautology consists of smuggling the conclusion into the assumption.

That wasn’t what I meant to suggest, quite the opposite in fact! ID theory is about the detection of design. In order to do that, we have to determine one or more characteristics that uniquely identify design vs. non-design. ID theory posits CSI as this distinguishing characteristic.

That, in and of itself, makes implicit assumptions about the designer. Specifically, it assumes that, if CSI can be identified, a designer exists and that the designer is capable of producing CSI. More information about the designer can be gleaned from patterns found as additional designed artifacts are identified. This information can be used to generate testable models of the designer’s capabilities and limitations.

There is no tautology here.

when we do a scientific inference, we reason our way FROM reason’s first principles, through the data, TO a designer. We do not begin by assuming anything about the designer.

I agree up until the last sentence. It is simply logically impossible to make no assumptions about the designer. Without some minimal assumptions, there is no reason to consider a rock undesigned but a flagella designed. Maybe the designer likes granite.

JJ

With all due respect, JayM are you a sock puppet?

I suspect my screen name is closer to my real name than yours is. Are you a sock puppet?

the detection of design inherently provides information about the designer

Would you please provide an inventory of what the evidence of design tells you about the designer?

As noted here and in other threads, at a minimum evidence of design shows that a designer exists. In fact, it shows a great deal more. The characteristics of the designed object provide information about the means used to produce it, and therefore about the nature of the designer capable of using such means.

As more designed artifacts are identified, commonalities that emerge provide even more information about the designer, i.e. “The designer tends to use this approach but never that approach.” which, in turn point to the capabilities, preferences, and constraints of the designer.

These kinds of inferences can define, at the very least, the general nature of the designer and suggest additional research directions.

JJ

“The problem is that we cannot detect design without making at least some assumptions about the nature of the designer. If ID theory is scientific, those assumptions cannot include non-natural characteristics.”

Is this the same kind of assumption that strict materialists make?

I just want to make sure i understand what you’re implying. Are you implying that we should ask..”IF (G)god exists, then such (G)god would have characteristics A, B & C. If this is true, then we would expect the appearances of design A, B & C.” ??

Well that’s a no-brainer. In the case of the apparent design of the universe, if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then we would expect to such God to design a universe the way we see it.

Does that contribute to anything toward evidence of design? No.

Let’s consider an assumption of a supposed designer. It would be intelligent. It would be purposeful. It would make choices. Dawkin’s intelligent aliens could be a likely candidate for that. Seems to me it is more relevant to recognize the minimal characteristics of design, rather than the characteristics of the designer. We already have a minimal set of characteristics for design, as demonstrated by human intelligence.