Joined: June 2006
On Ftk's thead, Reed suggested the following. I don't really think Ftk will address it as well...duh. But I think it is an interesting topic without Ftk (probably more so, actually).
The topics of archeology and forensic science is fascinating to many people. Contrasting them with the cartoonish views that IDiots have of them could be enjoyable.
Maybe FTK can take a stab at explaining what ID theory can contribute to this.
John Hawks (one of my all time favorite bloggers) has an extensive post that describes real world design detection in archeology.
Pigment use and symbolic behavior in the Neandertals
Some points of note:
* The proposed designer is explicitly identified.
* Ascribing design to the artifacts is done by identifying, analyzing and reproducing the methods the designers might have used, along with demonstrating that naturally modified items of the same composition do not share the same characteristics.
* Multiple independent lines of evidence support the assertion that the artifacts are designed. Not only are the modifications identified as non-natural, uses are proposed and identified.
* Abstract concepts like CSI or the "information content" of designed artifacts are not used.
ID proponents like to use archeology as an example of design detection, but why doesn't real world design detection look anything like ID theory ? Why can't these archeologists just calculate the CSI of those pigment blocks and run it through the 'nixplanatory filter ?
Edited to give proper credit
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin