Changes

An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention.  We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect.  If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it.  Common sense reflects a judgement about the most prudent of a set of possible choices.  If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.   

An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention.  We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect.  If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it.  Common sense reflects a judgement about the most prudent of a set of possible choices.  If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.   

Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things.  The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archeologists.  No one expects an archeologist to provide a rigorous "proof" that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being.  The archeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question.  As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or "the thing speaks for itself".  There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems.  We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.

Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things.  The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists.  No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous "proof" that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being.  The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question.  As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or "the thing speaks for itself".  There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems.  We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.

[[Image:William_Paley.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[William Paley]]]]

[[Image:William_Paley.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[William Paley]]]]

Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by [[Paley, William|'''William Paley''']] in his famous "watchmaker analogy". '''William Paley''' (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book [[Natural Theology|''Natural Theology'']].  Paley states his analogy:  

Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by [[Paley, William|'''William Paley''']] in his famous "watchmaker analogy". '''William Paley''' (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book [[Natural Theology|''Natural Theology'']].  Paley states his analogy:  

'''Forensic sciences''':  Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.  For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

'''Forensic sciences''':  Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.  For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

'''Archeology''':  Archeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection.  Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).  

'''Archeology''':  Archeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection.  Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).  

'''Cryptanalysis''':  Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking.  Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

'''Cryptanalysis''':  Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking.  Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all.  These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all.  These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification.  No rigorous analytical method is required of archeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification.  No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

====Response to Creationist Objections====

====Response to Creationist Objections====

Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Weiland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated."  The "separation" is epistomological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Weiland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated."  The "separation" is epistomological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically.  Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature.  That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method.  But science can say little about who the designer is.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically.  Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature.  That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method.  But science can say little about who the designer is.