INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Designed by a blind watchmaker, maybe.Cars, chairs and golf club designs have evolved in a trail-and-error approach. Designs that work or are popular get reproduced and improved. Are you suggesting that God is not omnipotent and has to work like Edison in his lab trying 1000's of designs and material to find what works. If God was omnipotent he would reach for the design and material that works on the first iteration.The products of nature overwhelming bear the marks of a untold number of trail-and-error experiments; not designed from the beginning by a omnipotent being. Try putting some meat on that thought. I think you may come to the opposite conclusion. What are you saying here? God needs to avoid appearances of impropriety? Huh? Why does a "good God" need to keep secrets.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

I don't see the problem here. This is an easy thing to test out.Take several people, and have each of them classify cars according to some hierarchical pattern. Let them choose which features to determine the classification, or give them a list of features yourself (like number of wheels, number of doors, carburator vs feul injection, number of cylinders, front wheel vs rear wheel vs all wheel drive, and so forth). I bet each person will come up with a significantly different pattern to their heirarchy. The type of design that went into manufacturing each car model simply does not produce a single nested hierarchy -- many possibilities exist.In the case of species of life, the same nested hierarchy comes up again and again. There really does exist in nature an objective standard by which one creature can be said to be similar to another. If creationists want to provide evidence against the theory of evolution, the simplest thing they could do is show how multiple nested hierarchies are possible in the classification of life. To my knowledge, no creationist has done this. It seems that even creationists agree that there is a single nested hierarchical pattern to life.Different models of cars have similar features because the designers reused common ideas. This is reflected in the pattern of the similarities. Different species have similar features because of common descent. This, too, is reflected in the pattern of similarities. The pattern seen in automobiles is very different than the pattern seen in living species. The difference in pattern shows that the similarity between different species is not analogous to the similarity between different models of cars.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Jazzns said:Are you saying this argument?Premise 1: Simple things like shoes, cars have designers who are known.
Premise 2: We do not know who is the designer--if ever there is one-- of Biological beings which are more complex than shoes and cars.conclusion: Therefore there is no designer for biological beings which are more complex than shoes and cars ??

How about this one?1) Living things are far, far more complex than anything the most intelligent creatures we're aware of have been able to create themselves.
2) Therefore, living things are too complex to have been designed.

Crashfrog said:LOL! :=):=) :=)I agree its a dumb argument against ID. Its a variant of this: The less complex a thing is the MORE is the need for a designer; the more complex it is the LEAST is the need for a designer.

What makes you think that's not true? Simplicity and elegance are the hallmark of good design, so when we see simplicity, we should suspect design.Complexity, interdependance, single-points-of-failure, and other mechanically dubious design philosophies are the hallmark of incompetent design, or, more often, design that "grows" from the ground up (like the way a city's highways are designed, usually piecemeal, over several decades by many individuals; or the way a building's plumbing might become complex and interdependant as a result of many, many plumbers fixing individual problems one at a time rather than dealing with the plumbing of the whole building.) Thus, when we see the kind of structures present in the natural world, among living things, the very last thing we should conclude is a top-down, big-picture Designer.Look, it makes perfect sense to me; maybe just because I've been around design and designers all my life. Did you have a rebuttal or were you just going to call my argument "dumb" and be done?

No I am not saying that. My argument is not against a designer. My argument is against using homology as proof of a designer.Because a function of life is reproduction, homologies in life are not characteristic of intention. Inanimate things like shoes and cars can ONLY be created and thus their homologies ARE characeristics of intention. That is why analogies of life to inanimate things such as cars fail.I am not trying to disprove a designer. That is impossible. I have only shown that the argument of design via homology is a failed argument.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

God= Software designerSoftware:The Cosmos version 1.0 A program that is set to run continual algorthyms that perpetuates the inevitablity of caos to order and back again and through this process forms a feedback mechanism that allows for continual change of energy to matter .
The Code: is the laws of physics
The Hardware: The Universe
The client: super intelligent beings who are bored of they're current online gamming choices.

Crashfrog said:Have you thought of the possibility of simplicity, elegance, and complexity all rolled into one? What does this mean? No designer?I don't know about you. But my Grandpa who crossified a Jewish carpenter was so astounded by the simplicity, elegance, and at the same time complexity of a folding rocking chair (designed & made by that carpenter). He sat on that chair while he pronounced judgment on that poor fellow. Later, Grandpa was so remorseful he didn't listen to Grandma's dream. Know what he did? He drank a simple, elegant, yet complex tasting wine--a remnant from a wedding in Cana. :=) :=) LOL!Common, Frog. Don't be labor the obvious!!PJ

Hi 1.61803 Hey, does it play on x-box? I've tried it on my PC but my cursor's too slow? Any cheats on that? He! he! he he!Please teach where and how did you post that silly grin at the end of your post? LOL! Poor Gov. Pilate, he is so outdated. Please help!

Have I thought of hot cold? Or white-colored black? Your question makes no sense. Simplicity and complexity are antonyms. A /= ~A is the most basic syllogysm in logic. That you don't know how to respond to an argument? Yeah, that's pretty obvious.

Crashfrog said:Sometimes silence is better. Let the reader decide.

Hi Chiroptera,
Thanks for the link "nested hierarchy". Among other things that article from Talk of Origin pointed out these common characteristics of living things: "(1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree."Then it said that these characteristics proves there is no designer; that all came from "one tree".I could argue the similarly /or contradictory can't I? I could say: 'NON living things--like cars, computers,etc-- have these "commonalities" (a) they are non replicating, (b)they don't have heritability, (c) they don't metabolize. Therefore, none of these were made.Of course there are 2 types of listener: (1)the incredulous, or (b) who will vehemently disagree.. How many do you think are (1), or (2) in this forum?Edited by pilate_judas, : grammarEdited by pilate_judas, : clarity

Hi, pilate.

quote:

---

Then it said that these characteristics proves there is no designer

---

Actually, it doesn't say any such thing.-Anyway, I don't understand the continued confusion on this.Here is how the nested hierarchies constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution.Let us take two examples. One, consider the copying of medieval manuscripts. Before the printing press, books had to be copied by hand. Several copies of important books would be made so that several people could have their own copies. Often, each of these copies would be copied in turn.Now no copyist is perfect. Often, there would be errors made in the copy process. So, two copies made from the same manuscript would sometimes be slightly different in that one would have one or more errors, while the other would either be error-free or have error in different places.But now that one particular copy has some errors, all the copies made from that manuscript will have the same errors. Plus, perhaps, one or more of these subcopies will have their own error, which will be propagated when copies are made from them.So what we have here is an example of "descent with small modifications". That is, direct copies are made of specific individuals, and these copies will not be exact replicas. What do we see? We see that we can arrange these manuscripts into a nested hierarchy which reflects the lineages of the specific manuscripts. This is not mere theory -- this is actually seen in real life, and, in fact, there is an entire field called textual criticism which concerns itself with trying to find out where and when a specific manuscript was made by comparing it to all the other copies of it that are known to exist, and also to try to figure out what the original error-free manuscript said. The interesting thing is that these manuscripts, which we know were produced through copying specific individuals with the inclusions of small differences, can be classified into one nested hierarchical pattern. All researchers will produce essentially the same pattern.Now take something that we know is not produced in this matter. Each car is not simply copied from an individual pre-existing car with some small modifications. Rather, cars are all produced en masse on assembly lines. And new models are not designed by merely making small modifications of a particular existing model, but by redesigning the whole thing, by mixing and matching features found in several completely different models, and sometimes incorporating completely novel features. Hence, there is no unique nested hierarchical pattern into which cars fall. If different people tried to produce a "phylogenic tree" for cars, each one would produce a very different tree.Now which pattern do the living species fall? The pattern that living species exhibit is like that of the manuscripts. It is not at all like that of the cars.This shouldn't be surprising. We already know that each individual organism is made by copying a pre-existing organism (the "parent"), and that minor modifications do occur. We already expect that some nested hierarchies should occur. What is surprising, or what should be surprising for someone who believes in special creation, is that all species can be placed on the same tree.Now, if common descent were true, this is what we should expect. If we did not see a unique nested hierarchy, then we would have reason to doubt common descent. This, in science, is what we call "evidence". According to common descent, we should see a unique nested hierarchy. If we do not see it, then we know that common descent is not a good explanation for biology. So now we look, and what do we see? We see a unique nested hierarchy.Now what other explanations do we have for this hierarchy? None that I am aware of. A "common designer"? Why would a common designer design according to a single nested hierarchy? Why wouldn't a common designer design according to a pattern like we see in cars, which are not produced from the copying of individuals with small differences? Why did the designer use a pattern that likes like that of manuscripts, where we know that individuals are copied from specific individuals with minor differences? A reasonable possibility is that all life ultimately stems from a common ancestor through a process by which each individual organism is copied from a previous organism with slight differences.This doesn't prove that the species were all individually created separately. But it is evidence for evolution. According to evolution we should see this pattern. And there is no other good reason why we should see it. And we do.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Welcome to the fray, limbosis. You seem a little ambivolent in your post (as others have noted). Love the avatar (now). Isn't "limbosis" a dance troupe?I design things for a living. That gives me a perspective on what is, and what is not, good design. Neither. First I would review all relevant designs. Staff and I would have several brainstorming sessions going over various designs. Water pistols would be used on any wet blankets. Originality wanted.Then when all NEW ideas PLUS all OLD ideas were on the table we would evaluate how they relate to the NEED of the design, and how to best realize concept into actuality, with no aversion to borrow from any other design that shows merit.What emerges is a combination of new and old ideas melded into a well crafted whole. The old ideas come from all over the map, not just the ones that are convenient to use. And to do it better than the next designer who is doing the same thing with their staff. I'm still at it too.Take the human eye as an example.It's a D-- design imh(ysa)o, sub-par, below average, inside-out, missing visual areas, junk in the way of sensors, prone to failure (sometimes at birth), and it has no backup mechanism to correct problems that develop.Design a car with fly-by-wire steering and have no backups or fail-safes, and see how long your design career lasts.But that's not all of WHY it is a BAD design. Look at the octopus eye.I give it a C grade, average. It is better than the human eye because the retina faces the light (WHAT a THOUGHT!) with no blind-spot in the center of the best vision area for the cables to run through and without any cables in FRONT of the sensors (Yes virginia, you CAN do that).Next I look at them and see that one (human) changes focus by changing the lens shape to bring near or far things into focus on the retina, and that the other (octopus) changes the EYE shape to bring the retina into position where near or far things are in focus. Mohamed and the mountain eh?Then I look at zoom lenses and note that they use double focus mechanisms to change the power of the lens used and bring the view into focus: combining the best elements of the octopus eye and the human eye into one design gives you far superior vision and abilitiy, and glasses would never be needed.That would be a first level designed eye. One that would get a B grade.It does not exist in nature -- so where is your designer?Possibly at Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...Pay particular attention to:

• Investigator: Eye's Silly Design Message 4
  
• A Wing and A Walkingstick Message 18
  
• Sex, Sickness and Silliness Message 23
  
• Flagellum's Funny Flailing Message 33
  

The question is, are you ready to be wrong? Or will you deny evidence that shows the contradictions of your beliefs?One way lies science, the other delusion.Enjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.