ARCHIVE - The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory-by Casey Luskin
- Thread starter Prisca
- Start date
Knight-I would say it came about by intelligent design…. But then I thought the Boeing 747 carving on the ancient pottery looked like a dinosaur. So what do I know.
Oh by the way I was watching Discovery the other day and they found an arrowhead in that five thousand year old “Ice Man” mummy, and now believe that he was murdered.
Funny thing was, as soon as they saw the arrowhead on the MRI they never questioned that it was anything but a man made, intelligently designed, arrowhead. Those silly scientist.
Oh by the way I was watching Discovery the other day and they found an arrowhead in that five thousand year old “Ice Man” mummy, and now believe that he was murdered.
Funny thing was, as soon as they saw the arrowhead on the MRI they never questioned that it was anything but a man made, intelligently designed, arrowhead. Those silly scientist.
Re: BANG! big or little?
Re: BANG! big or little?
Lion why do you think that rock would have to create itself? Do you think a rock is an irreducible entity? Rocks are made of different things and I don't know which one was the first one but which ever one it was, it was formed by the combining of various elements into a rock. If you're asking how the first elements came about. I don't know. No one knows. That's the point. Just because we don't know is no reason to cop out and infer that there is a god who created them. It really is okay just to say "We don't yet know how that happened." What we do know, is that for every process for which we've found an answer, not one of those answers has involved a supernatural cause. Now I ask yet again, why do you think it's logical to suggest a supernatural cause is needed for natural things when there is not a single instance of a supernatural cause ever being needed for anything?
Re: BANG! big or little?
Lion why do you think that rock would have to create itself? Do you think a rock is an irreducible entity? Rocks are made of different things and I don't know which one was the first one but which ever one it was, it was formed by the combining of various elements into a rock. If you're asking how the first elements came about. I don't know. No one knows. That's the point. Just because we don't know is no reason to cop out and infer that there is a god who created them. It really is okay just to say "We don't yet know how that happened." What we do know, is that for every process for which we've found an answer, not one of those answers has involved a supernatural cause. Now I ask yet again, why do you think it's logical to suggest a supernatural cause is needed for natural things when there is not a single instance of a supernatural cause ever being needed for anything?
ThinkerThinker
New member
Re: Thinker not Thinking
Re: Thinker not Thinking
Entropy increase only in isolated systems. When there is an exchange of energy between systems it can is possible for complexity or order to develop (like your rock). A more obvious example of this principle is the everyday formation of clouds. It is a non-isolated system that produce an increase in complexity. The second law doesn't apply to non-isolated systems.
It has been verified that the universe has obeyed the second law of thermodynamics ever since the time of the big bang. And before the big bang? Well before the big bang there was no time just as there was no matter and without time there is no second law to violate.
Now, you might argue that it takes an awful lot of faith to say the universe came from nothing or has been there forever but at least I can point to the universe and say well it’s there. You cannot do the same. You cannot say God came from nothing or has been there forever, point him out to me and say well he’s there.
The law of biogenesis, for as much as it is a law, only states that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that NOW exist upon our planet or as we currently are able to create in the lab. That is pretty obvious but when life developed from non-life the conditions are not what they are today and the fact that scientists have not been able to recreate the conditions does not proof they will not be able to do so in the future. Life is just another matter/energy construct and there is more than enough examples that demonstrate matter/energy has no problem developing from one construct to another.
TT
Re: Thinker not Thinking
I assume you meant the second law of thermodynamics because the first does not apply and the third is not relevant so:
Entropy increase only in isolated systems. When there is an exchange of energy between systems it can is possible for complexity or order to develop (like your rock). A more obvious example of this principle is the everyday formation of clouds. It is a non-isolated system that produce an increase in complexity. The second law doesn't apply to non-isolated systems.
It has been verified that the universe has obeyed the second law of thermodynamics ever since the time of the big bang. And before the big bang? Well before the big bang there was no time just as there was no matter and without time there is no second law to violate.
Now, you might argue that it takes an awful lot of faith to say the universe came from nothing or has been there forever but at least I can point to the universe and say well it’s there. You cannot do the same. You cannot say God came from nothing or has been there forever, point him out to me and say well he’s there.
The law of biogenesis, for as much as it is a law, only states that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that NOW exist upon our planet or as we currently are able to create in the lab. That is pretty obvious but when life developed from non-life the conditions are not what they are today and the fact that scientists have not been able to recreate the conditions does not proof they will not be able to do so in the future. Life is just another matter/energy construct and there is more than enough examples that demonstrate matter/energy has no problem developing from one construct to another.
TT
Opponents of ID continue to equate ID theory with supernatural processes and this is just plain wrong. I think part of the problem is that some creationists are using intelligent design as part of their apologetic program for proving that the God of the Bible exists, nevertheless, ID as a theory presupposes neither a supernatural creator nor miracles. ID is a tool used in an investigation that endeavors to determine if some aspects of biotic reality are better explained by reference to a seeing watchmaker rather than a blind watchmaker. A seeing watchmaker need not be a supernatural agent and may be endowed with nothing more than human-like intelligence. Intelligent Design is theologically minimalist. It detects intelligence without speculating about the supernatural. Biochemist Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity," physicist David Bohm's "active information," mathematician Marcel Schutzenberger's "functional complexity," and William Dembski's "complex specified information" are alternate routes to the same reality.
It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory, and distinguishes it from the design arguments of philosophers, or what has traditionally been called "natural theology."
ID looks for patterns of data from life that can best be interpreted as traces of bioengineering. It may not be perfect. It promises no certain knowledge. But it does employ reasonable constraints to generate focus and make testable hypotheses. And that is all that matters.
Finally, ID is premised not on a quest for certainty or an attempt to convert all scientists to its methodology. ID is for those whose thinking lies somewhere between those who think the case for design is obvious and true and those who think it is non-existent. ID is for those who don't buy into the notion that we need to show abiogenesis/evolution is impossible before introducing design (as the anti-design folks believe). ID is for those who recognize that if design occurred sometime in the distant past, there would likely be no independent evidence of the designer apart from the properties of the designed thing, which in themselves, are always open to re-interpretation without a designer. ID is for those who seriously *suspect* design for whatever reason.
For instance, I suspect design for many reasons none of which are based on Biblical text. Here are a few: the need to employ teleological concepts and language to understand biology (but not other areas of science); the encoded information in DNA being likened to a software code according to many scientists, the growing appreciation that the cell is far more like a factory of organized molecular machines than a soup; the growing intractability of abiogenesis in light of new knowledge; and the manner in which so much of early life looks front-loaded with information such that its evolution since looks mostly like the shuffling and tinkering of pre-existing endowments. For some people, such reasons may be sufficient to conclude design. For me, such reasons only impart a strong suspicion of design. ID enables one to build on this strong suspicion by looking for the specific traces of design and to use design to generate further coherency.
ID is thus not a generic method to distinguish design from non-design. It is a method that scores things to allow one to either strengthen or weaken their suspicions as regards to the thing in question.
Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." I agree, therefore I work with the assumption that if something looks designed, it probably is unless there is good reason to think otherwise and if something looks evolved, it probably is unless there is good reason to think otherwise. And the exciting by-product of this approach is the generation of testable hypotheses that have the ability to increase general knowledge about the world. Knowledge that we could never find using a methodology that rejects design. But in the anti-ID'ers perceptual field, things that look evolved and things that look designed are all the products of evolution. Of course they are going to complain about ID.
As I see it, something that exhibits machine-like complexity is likely to be the product of design unless there is good reason to think otherwise. This is because we know of thousands of machines whose origin is *known* to be from design.
Since opening the black box of the cell, many things have turned out to look strangely machine-like. So machine-like, I view them as literal machines and there is no good argument against this perception. This, of course, is to be expected from a design event and design proponents have a long history of likening living things to machines. This was also NOT expected from the viewpoint that excluded design, as has been documented with the observations of leading scientific figures. More importantly, however, is that this ID/machine paradigm is a fruitful guide to research.
Now the common objection to this is that human artifacts are not biological or biochemical systems. But those that make this objection must be unaware of all the biotechnology that has arisen on this planet in the last few decades.
I think the biological machines that make up the core of life are sufficiently analogous to man-made machines to make an ID inference. We know they are at least analogous enough that the president of the National Academy of Sciences (Bruce Alberts) has proposed that biologists begin to learn from engineers to understand biology. I therefore, see no problem with treating life as carbon-based nanotechnology.
It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory, and distinguishes it from the design arguments of philosophers, or what has traditionally been called "natural theology."
ID looks for patterns of data from life that can best be interpreted as traces of bioengineering. It may not be perfect. It promises no certain knowledge. But it does employ reasonable constraints to generate focus and make testable hypotheses. And that is all that matters.
Finally, ID is premised not on a quest for certainty or an attempt to convert all scientists to its methodology. ID is for those whose thinking lies somewhere between those who think the case for design is obvious and true and those who think it is non-existent. ID is for those who don't buy into the notion that we need to show abiogenesis/evolution is impossible before introducing design (as the anti-design folks believe). ID is for those who recognize that if design occurred sometime in the distant past, there would likely be no independent evidence of the designer apart from the properties of the designed thing, which in themselves, are always open to re-interpretation without a designer. ID is for those who seriously *suspect* design for whatever reason.
For instance, I suspect design for many reasons none of which are based on Biblical text. Here are a few: the need to employ teleological concepts and language to understand biology (but not other areas of science); the encoded information in DNA being likened to a software code according to many scientists, the growing appreciation that the cell is far more like a factory of organized molecular machines than a soup; the growing intractability of abiogenesis in light of new knowledge; and the manner in which so much of early life looks front-loaded with information such that its evolution since looks mostly like the shuffling and tinkering of pre-existing endowments. For some people, such reasons may be sufficient to conclude design. For me, such reasons only impart a strong suspicion of design. ID enables one to build on this strong suspicion by looking for the specific traces of design and to use design to generate further coherency.
ID is thus not a generic method to distinguish design from non-design. It is a method that scores things to allow one to either strengthen or weaken their suspicions as regards to the thing in question.
Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." I agree, therefore I work with the assumption that if something looks designed, it probably is unless there is good reason to think otherwise and if something looks evolved, it probably is unless there is good reason to think otherwise. And the exciting by-product of this approach is the generation of testable hypotheses that have the ability to increase general knowledge about the world. Knowledge that we could never find using a methodology that rejects design. But in the anti-ID'ers perceptual field, things that look evolved and things that look designed are all the products of evolution. Of course they are going to complain about ID.
As I see it, something that exhibits machine-like complexity is likely to be the product of design unless there is good reason to think otherwise. This is because we know of thousands of machines whose origin is *known* to be from design.
Since opening the black box of the cell, many things have turned out to look strangely machine-like. So machine-like, I view them as literal machines and there is no good argument against this perception. This, of course, is to be expected from a design event and design proponents have a long history of likening living things to machines. This was also NOT expected from the viewpoint that excluded design, as has been documented with the observations of leading scientific figures. More importantly, however, is that this ID/machine paradigm is a fruitful guide to research.
Now the common objection to this is that human artifacts are not biological or biochemical systems. But those that make this objection must be unaware of all the biotechnology that has arisen on this planet in the last few decades.
I think the biological machines that make up the core of life are sufficiently analogous to man-made machines to make an ID inference. We know they are at least analogous enough that the president of the National Academy of Sciences (Bruce Alberts) has proposed that biologists begin to learn from engineers to understand biology. I therefore, see no problem with treating life as carbon-based nanotechnology.
Uhhhh.... Hank turn on the noggin.
Come on guys......
notto, JGalt, TinkerThinker, even Hank.....
What are the two objects in this picture?
notto, JGalt, TinkerThinker, even Hank.....
What are the two objects in this picture?
Originally posted by Knight
Come on guys......
notto, JGalt, TinkerThinker, even Hank.....
What are the two objects in this picture?
I believe I have already answered what's in the picture. Rocks that look like manmade arrowheads. I can say that they are probably manmade because I can compare them to other existing manmade arrowheads that have been shown to be manmade. I use existing knowledge of what an arrowhead looks like, my knowledge of the fact that indeed men make arrowheads, and the fact that it would be very rare for a rock that looks like an arrowhead to form naturally.
In order to PROVE that they are indeed manmade arrowheads, I would need to look further into the context of where they were found, to make sure that there is evidence that they were manufactured and that a designer existed to manufacture them (and that they could not have been formed by a rare, natural event). I can't base a proof on past arrowhead finds, I can only make a reasonable assumption based on those past finds. This is the point of addressing this analogy in the way I have done when it is used as an analogy for ID. I personally determine they are most likely manmade arrowheads by comparing them to other manmade arrowheads. You can't use this analogy to explain things that we have not every observed being designed!
Arrowheads don't have a way to change and build themselves, and pass improved traits (more arrowlike) unto new arrowheads, unlike living organisms. This is why this analogy fails as an argument for ID in naturally formed entities and why it is easier for us to determine that inanimate and unchanging objects that are complex are indeed the product of manmade manufacturing (ID). Natural processes are creative and dynamic and provide pathways to change (and select for change) to animate entities. We can't say that these entities are designed based on our past knowledge because we have never seen them designed (unlike the arrowheads) and we cannot show how they could be designed (again, unlike the arrowheads). There is also no evidence of a creator or evidence of the actions of a creator in the animate objects, unlike the arrowheads scratchs, chips, and marks that show me that the rock was acted on my an outside creator.
Since there is no evidence of a creator in animate objects, why should we assume one exists (when there is no need to to explain what we know so far and can see)? Until all of the natural, dynamic, creative processes are know and can be identified, there is no need to introduce a creator into our analysis of living beings. To do so is just to introduce a "Designer of the Gaps".
OK folks notto cannot identify the objects in the picture, he can only say they are "Rocks that look like manmade arrowheads." anyone else want to take a stab (no pun intended) at it?
ThinkerThinker
New member
OK, I agree with notto and think his answer is adaquet but I will add this picture:
I went to look for something like this to make a point. Excuse my lack of digital photography skills. This is a river stone and not a stone made by cavemen but I think it is a better "design" then your example. I added some circles where I think your fingers can go to use it as a dagger.
As I said, notto got it about right in his post but I think you do not grasp what he is really saying.
TT
Last edited:
Thinker.... why not try thinking?
I asked you specifically about the picture I posted! Your rock would indeed take "further investigation".
So you are joining notto in admitting you could NOT identify (without further investigation) what the items are in the picture? How sad!
Anyone else?
What are the two objects in this picture?
I asked you specifically about the picture I posted! Your rock would indeed take "further investigation".
So you are joining notto in admitting you could NOT identify (without further investigation) what the items are in the picture? How sad!
Anyone else?
What are the two objects in this picture?
Originally posted by Knight
Thinker.... why not try thinking?
I asked you specifically about the picture I posted! Your rock would indeed take "further investigation".
So you are joining notto in admitting you could NOT identify (without further investigation) what the items are in the picture? How sad!
Anyone else?
What are the two objects in this picture?
The question you should be asking yourself is not what's in the picture but
1) How do we know that these are manmade arrowheads (comparison with other, tested arrowheads and past knowledge of arrowheads).
2) How would you PROVE these are manmade arrowheads (By further analysis not based on any previously found arrowheads).
3) Why did I hijack this thread to discuss arrowheads when the topic was Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.
ThinkerThinker
ThinkerThinker
Thank you for posting that picture. You saved me some time. The reason I specifically chose arrowheads in the first place, was because I recently watched a program which suggested that many “supposed” arrowheads, may in fact have been created by natural processes. While I agree this could and does happen, there is a point at which intelligent design becomes obvious. Arrowheads are a great example because we can begin to demonstrate a “dividing line” between chance and intent. But what is that “dividing line?”
As Warren stated, “… the exciting by-product of this approach is the generation of testable hypotheses that have the ability to increase general knowledge about the world. Knowledge that we could never find using a methodology that rejects design.”
ThinkerThinker
Thank you for posting that picture. You saved me some time. The reason I specifically chose arrowheads in the first place, was because I recently watched a program which suggested that many “supposed” arrowheads, may in fact have been created by natural processes. While I agree this could and does happen, there is a point at which intelligent design becomes obvious. Arrowheads are a great example because we can begin to demonstrate a “dividing line” between chance and intent. But what is that “dividing line?”
Even without converting the information our arrowheads contain into bits of measured information, we can infer that my arrowheads are more likely the products of intelligent design than yours. Does that exclude yours? No:
But, “there is an upper limit to the sorts of information content which can be produced by natural processes.” So, what is that “upper limit”? Can we detect it? Is it present in biological and biochemical systems? If it is, why is it important?
As Warren stated, “… the exciting by-product of this approach is the generation of testable hypotheses that have the ability to increase general knowledge about the world. Knowledge that we could never find using a methodology that rejects design.”
OK, no more about arrowheads and those who can't recognize them.
ThinkerThinker
New member
I am glad the arrow head debate has now been settled but just a point to Knight:
TT
A lot of the problems we have, which leads to misunderstanding and conflict, are actually caused by drawing conclusions from available information then presenting them as fact. Notto's approach is more cautious in that it leaves room for being wrong. This is in fact a much more sensible approach because it allows you to remain open to other suggestions and not become fanatical and close minded to alternative ideas. Notto admits those looks like arrowheads but that it might be a mistaken assumption. That's called maturity and such maturity often results in better understanding.
TT
Last edited:
The Blind Watchmaker hypothesis says that natural selection, in combination with random mutation, has the kind of creative power needed to make complex plants and animals out of very much simpler predecessors. If Darwinian selection does not have the required creative power, then "evolution" in some general sense may still be true, but science does not know how creative evolution has occurred. The materialist belief that a blind watchmaker turned microbes into magpies, maple trees and musicians doesn't require any evidence because a blind watchmaker is a logical deduction from materialism. If a critic finds the current blind watchmaker inadequate to explain everything that's occurred in natural history, his only permissible move within science is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker is not a logical possibility. Thus, most scientists don't investigate to determine IF life evolved, they only search for ways life DID evolve. Now, why should it be surprising to materialists that non-materialists remain skeptical of the current blind watchmaker hypothesis and feel that evidence for a seeing watchmaker may not be getting a fair hearing?
Richard Dawkins doesn't say that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having evolved. Instead he says, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." If nature looks this way to a materialist like Dawkins then what's wrong with a non-materialist having a suspicion that biological things that exhibit machine-like complexity look designed because they are designed? In particular those things for which there is no evidence they evolved solely through non-intelligent processes.
Here is an interesting quote that describes the machine-like nature of the cell:
"We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as na‹ve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB - and likewise for many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. But, as it turn out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." [Alberts, B. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92; 291-294.]
Physicist and science writer Paul Davies also has come to understand the essence of life at its molecular level. In his book The Fifth Miracle he says:
"Each cell is packed with tiny structures that might have come from an engineer's manual. Miniscule tweezers, scissors, pumps, motors, levers, valves, pipes, chains, and even vehicles abound. But of course the cell is more than just a bag of gadgets. The various components fit together to form a smoothly functioning whole, like an elaborate factory production line. The miracle of life is not that it is made of nanotools, but that these tiny diverse parts are integrated in a highly organized way."
Is the ultimate origin of the cell better explained as the product of advanced biomolecular engineering or is it better explained as the product of non-intelligent processes? Some scientists are logically inferring that life is carbon-based nanotechnology and are generating testable hypotheses from this perspective. One of them is Mike Gene. Here is an interesting observation from him:
"The specified complexity we find within the cell expresses itself in a dynamic three dimensional way and I would thus define it as machine-like complexity (MLC). With machine-like complexity, we are dealing with function that not only depends on arrangement (of parts), but also the conformation of those parts, their positioning, and timing. All of these are important such that you get coordinated movement of the parts as it is this coordinated movement that carries out the function....
Now as I see it, the inference to design from machine-like complexity (MLC) is a pretty darn reliable inference. I go through life inferring intelligence from MLC and don't live in a maze of confusion because of multiple mistakes in inferring intelligence from MLC, only to find the MLC arose from some non-intelligent mechanism. In the world I move through, intelligence is the default explanation for machine-like complexity, not merely because experience says so, but because MLC can be rationally viewed as the frozen trace of Mind. It's such a *natural*, free-flowing, and beautifully simple inference that I would need more than a possibility to attribute it to something other than intelligence. When I confront MLC, I don't naturally say, "Now *there's* evidence of a non-intelligent cause!" Perhaps if I had a history of being misled by this inference, I would take the mere possibility of MLC coming from non-intelligent mechanisms more seriously. Those who insist on attributing MLC to non-intelligence are free to do so a far as I am concerned. But if they expect me to make the same attribution, they will need more than a claim about how things might happen. They will need some good old-fashioned evidence to show that the particular example of MLC in question did indeed arise from a non-intelligent mechanism. I simply see no evidence that machine-like complexity-from-non-machine-like complexity is generated by non-teleological means, yet it is also quite clear that ID is a known cause for machine-like complexity."
Richard Dawkins doesn't say that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having evolved. Instead he says, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." If nature looks this way to a materialist like Dawkins then what's wrong with a non-materialist having a suspicion that biological things that exhibit machine-like complexity look designed because they are designed? In particular those things for which there is no evidence they evolved solely through non-intelligent processes.
Here is an interesting quote that describes the machine-like nature of the cell:
"We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as na‹ve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB - and likewise for many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. But, as it turn out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." [Alberts, B. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92; 291-294.]
Physicist and science writer Paul Davies also has come to understand the essence of life at its molecular level. In his book The Fifth Miracle he says:
"Each cell is packed with tiny structures that might have come from an engineer's manual. Miniscule tweezers, scissors, pumps, motors, levers, valves, pipes, chains, and even vehicles abound. But of course the cell is more than just a bag of gadgets. The various components fit together to form a smoothly functioning whole, like an elaborate factory production line. The miracle of life is not that it is made of nanotools, but that these tiny diverse parts are integrated in a highly organized way."
Is the ultimate origin of the cell better explained as the product of advanced biomolecular engineering or is it better explained as the product of non-intelligent processes? Some scientists are logically inferring that life is carbon-based nanotechnology and are generating testable hypotheses from this perspective. One of them is Mike Gene. Here is an interesting observation from him:
"The specified complexity we find within the cell expresses itself in a dynamic three dimensional way and I would thus define it as machine-like complexity (MLC). With machine-like complexity, we are dealing with function that not only depends on arrangement (of parts), but also the conformation of those parts, their positioning, and timing. All of these are important such that you get coordinated movement of the parts as it is this coordinated movement that carries out the function....
Now as I see it, the inference to design from machine-like complexity (MLC) is a pretty darn reliable inference. I go through life inferring intelligence from MLC and don't live in a maze of confusion because of multiple mistakes in inferring intelligence from MLC, only to find the MLC arose from some non-intelligent mechanism. In the world I move through, intelligence is the default explanation for machine-like complexity, not merely because experience says so, but because MLC can be rationally viewed as the frozen trace of Mind. It's such a *natural*, free-flowing, and beautifully simple inference that I would need more than a possibility to attribute it to something other than intelligence. When I confront MLC, I don't naturally say, "Now *there's* evidence of a non-intelligent cause!" Perhaps if I had a history of being misled by this inference, I would take the mere possibility of MLC coming from non-intelligent mechanisms more seriously. Those who insist on attributing MLC to non-intelligence are free to do so a far as I am concerned. But if they expect me to make the same attribution, they will need more than a claim about how things might happen. They will need some good old-fashioned evidence to show that the particular example of MLC in question did indeed arise from a non-intelligent mechanism. I simply see no evidence that machine-like complexity-from-non-machine-like complexity is generated by non-teleological means, yet it is also quite clear that ID is a known cause for machine-like complexity."