A topic that frequently comes up in these creation debates, be it in context of evolution or the origins of the universe or alike, is our supposed ability to be able to differentiate "design" from natural occurances.
Yet whenever creationist or "design proponents" bring this up, it seems to me that they are either very vague about it or their methodology of "detecting design" seems to be no more then fallacious argumentst from ignorance ("I don't know how it can be natural, so therefor it isn't"), arguments from incredulity ("I don't believe it's natural, therefor it isn't") or various species or combinations thereof.
I would say that in a nutshell, we detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing or use of artificial materials.
This implies that we have to understand manufacturing processes and what signs / traces they tend to leave.
It also implies that we have to understand the difference between naturally occuring materials and artificial materials.
This in turn means that we could not detect or conclude design when it concerns things of unknown manufactoring and natural processes or of unknown materials.
This also means that if a designer sets out to mimic natural processes and materials while doing a perfect job, we would not be able to tell the artificial object from the natural object.
For example, if someone would take a rough stone and smooth it out by perfectly mimicing water erosion as what would happen in say a river, we would not be able to tell that this was done by a person instead of by a river.
So, having said that, when somebody *Mod edit* then states that one can "detect design" in the universe based on for example of the values of the physical constants, I wonder what the methodology is that is being used.
So in this thread, I invite people who disagree with my methodology of detecting design to explain their methodology of doing so and demonstrate how it achieves better results.
Design can be detected by its deliberate conscious intent. For example, the Doberman Pincher dog did not appear naturally using the law of nature. It was designed based on a need. It began with a Karl Friedrich Louis Doberman, who was a tax collector, night watchman, dogcatcher, and the keeper of a dog pound, in Germany, about 1890.
As a tax collector he often had to go to the shady sides of town, to collect taxes from businesses. He was often approached by thieves. So, he decided he needed a body guard dog. As the head of the dog pound and dog catcher he used the various breeds in the pound, and crossbred them until he came up with a new breed that was ideally designed for his own personal protection; big, strong, scary, fearless, athletic, loyal and could break a man's arm with one bite. This is still the only dog breed specifically and intentionally, bred from scratch, to be a human bodyguard. This is an example of a dog designed for a human task, that would not and did not occur naturally; manmade design.
If you look at the Big Bang, the question that appears is what came before the BB and the primordial atom? Science does not know. It can and does speculate. Many assume it came from nothing, since the BB made everything that is now tangible including the laws of nature. Like the doberman and the gap between natural wolf and man made doberman shows design, since science cannot use the natural laws, to make the Big Bang from scratch, maybe it appeared by conscious intend and necessity; design.
The same is true of life. Evolution starts at replicators but cannot show how these first replicators appeared, naturally. They could have been designed by an alien race to left here, like we can do in a lab today. Based on our knowledge of the laws of life and nature, the first replicators do not have a natural explanation and proof, that we could demonstrate with only natural causes. All we have winning the lottery ticket. The doberman is a dog, but it is not of natural origins. Like the replicators, appearing by design is a valid option.
Science of evolution uses a dual standard to negate the claim of design. The science proof needed to back that negation, requires making replicators from scratch. But since that has never happened, to disprove design, they have made an unbacked claim. The claim of natural selection and natural laws, would preclude using applied science and modern techniques, since that would also by design. It would show conscious intent or design using applies science synthesis techniques and tools, that are not fully natural; in glassware.
All the science speculation for original causes, are based on theoretical and mathematical designs, and not natural proof. At this point, design is the correct answer, for man or God, since nobody has done it naturally. The religion of evolution cannot just impose a dogma and not have any natural proof. Can you show me where nature uses statistical methods and a black box? This is a math design that is not natural.
