Gee, I don't know, RF, what are the numbers you apply to something that "seems" designed?  It include SC yet you are seperating it out. How odd - and yet predictable.

Game over, checkmate. You lose.

Too bad the UPB is meaningless.

Game over. You lose.

I gave many, I even gave an example that a fellow ID'ist gave.  You prefer not to see what is true, only what you believe.

The only thing Marks and Dembski demonstrated was their own abject incompetence (not to mention colossal arrogance).

As far as the UPB, Lloyd pointed out that the universe has had time to do ~10¹²⁰ logical ops on ~10⁹⁰ bits.
But the foundations of the concept of probability say the probability of any unique event remains subject to the ideas of good ol' Reverend Bayes, which merely sinks the alleged probability distributions that one is claiming determine the probability, rather than demonstrating the UPB has actually been exceeded. Which is a different way of saying what daedelus2.0 seems to have been saying.

Meanwhile, is R. Faith claiming that the actual probability of a purposeful design is undeterminable? Or not? if not, he is welcome to take any known purposeful design and calculate for us it's probability -- its "absolute, ultimate, from-the-perspective-of-the-universe" probability. And do it while ignoring Rev. Bayes.

Why not? You could set up an experiment giving a disparate set of individuals the same task, say, designing a paper airplane that will fly 20'. You could separate them by age, or occupation, or species or whatever and use the information gained to calculate the probabilities of a certain individual performing the design function.


You have to know something of capabilities and process to determine if there were intended function. Even the definitions are inadequate: I suppose Design is an intentional arrangement of parts and I guess you would define Intelligence as an capable of thinking like a human. It's not helpful. Even a  functional design can happen by accident - unintended design. Or by a combination of design and chance. Without knowlege of intent and process the whole concept of Intelligent Design is useless.


No fair. In assessing which hypothesis is more probable you have to weigh the design hypothesis against the current evolutionary hypothesis. Evolution has the observed phenomenon of selection and genetic drift operating through a process of genetic recombination. Every fossil found, every genetic history teased out, every regulatory gene/phenotype interaction changes the probabilities of the evolutionary hypothesis. Without a proposed process or even an identified timeline for a designed feature you can't begin to make a comparison as to whether evolution or design is more likely. Until you come up with some empirical design evidence the most likely explanation for biological diversity is the evolutionary hypothesis. If you feel that you have proved to your own satisfaction that the current evolutionary synthesis is statistically inadequate to explain the present diversity of life then the default is don't know.  And to be considered science "don't know" will always default to some testable naturalistic hypothesis.