[Nebullis]

[I]nference from consistency into a credible prediction is one kind thinking, the transfer of that kind of knowledge into other fields of knowledge is something else altogether, requiring--as you say--"the useful." I suspect you have an opinion on the first kind, and I trust we won't be abusive on the second.

IDists abuse of reason:

Human design can be inferred. Therefore, everything that looks designed and is not designed by humans is designed by an Intelligent Designer.

[cornelis]

Bingo.

But let's help out the little guy: Aristotle tells us that someone can be right with the wrong reason.

It is slowly dawning on a few that the same logical errors can be perpetrated by any and every participant in the debate.

[Diamond]

IDists abuse of reason:

Human design can be inferred. Therefore, everything that looks designed and is not designed by humans is designed by an Intelligent Designer

With all due respect, Nebullis, detecting the activity of intelligent agency is an indisputably common form of rational activity. This thread constitutes a test, proposed by general-re on another thread, which I at leat hope will serve as an evaluation of the competing explanatory power of chance, necessity, and design with respect to whatever pictures of the general's choosing he posts. One of my goals in accepting this challenge is to determine more precisely, to use your phrase, what "everything that looks designed" actually means with reference to chance, necessity, or design. The method is my application of the three-fold criterion of contingency, complexity and specificity to whatever pictures the general posts. Although I am particularly unsuited to the task, I have accepted the general's challenge because no one else so far had done so. If you have suggestions for, or challenges to my application of the stated criterion in this experiment I for one certainly welcome your input.

Cordially,