If we propose intelligent design, we have to ask what we should expect to see. We should get an induction of amazing designs, not just average, as might be expected from weak evolution.
Usually we see petty examples from Evolutionists, that are usually questionable. For example, nipples in men. I.e. Problems that aren't really problems, or silly little problems with eyes, to distract us from the rather large evidence that eyes are remarkable.
So here is the beginning of an induction we should expect to see. Certainly bio-mimicry should not be common place given the designer's ineptitude, but that is not the case;
*Human autonomy ---The fingers and autonomy leading to incredibly precise manoevres in the human hand, is enabled by an incredibly complex set of contingencies. " The lumbrical muscle serves two main functions—extending and retracting the finger in coordination with the other muscles. These muscles must work closely together. The complexity of moving three finger bones in sync is hard to grasp. Imagine laying three steel bars on the ground end-to-end, and then tying the bars together with a series of wire harnesses. Pulling any one wire will affect the other wires. Now try moving all three bars together, side-to-side and up-and-down at the same time. You’ll quickly see how hard it is to keep everything in alignment. Yet our index finger has no such problem. As the lumbrical muscle contracts, it reduces the tension on the long flexor tendon, while the lumbrical muscle simultaneously pulls on a ligament at the side of the finger, extending the finger ". (http://www.answersingenesis.org/...les/am/v5/n3/index-finger)
* Elephants. An elephant's ears, can cool down elephants in a short time, just by flapping their ears they can reduce their temperature. It 's trunk, amazing smell. 100 thousand muscle units. It can lift a 500 pound log and yet take something from a child's hand, very delicately. And yet his head is heavy and porous to compensate for it's size. They have big cushions on their feet to handle the weight. You would think an elephant would get stuck in the mud with it's great weight and yet his legs shrink in diameter enabling him to get out. Clever contingencies.
* Alligators. " The alligator can do more than just swim fast; in many other ways, he is uniquely designed for life in the water. Located on the same plane, his eyes, nose, and ear slits allow him to float mostly submerged and still see, smell, and hear above water. Since alligators frequently hunt at night, their eyes are equipped with cat-like pupils to see well in the dark. People often use ear plugs, nose plugs, and goggles when they swim, to keep water from going where it’s not supposed to, but alligators don’t have that problem. Their nose and ear slits are designed to close when they plunge into the water. And the nictitating membrane, a protective covering over the eye, allows alligators to keep their eyes open underwater. Imagine having your own built-in goggles! " (http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../am/v5/n2/sovereign-swamp)
* Shrimps' eyes. "The shrimp’s eyes are actually similar in some respects to technology called quarter-wave plates, which are designed to convert light polarity in CD and DVD players, and some camera filters. However, quarter-wave plates only work well for one color of light. The eyes of the mantis shrimp, on the other hand, work well across a broad light spectrum, much broader than that of human-made devices. The researchers believe mantis shrimp use this special ability in hunting and communication. " (AIG)
* Trilobites' eyes. "When I take students snorkeling and scuba diving, I have to warn them that organisms and objects underwater appear closer and larger than they really are (so that big, nearby shark is really smaller and farther away!). Some trilobites didn’t have that problem. They had double-lens systems that made the corrections for underwater vision, sort of “hand-crafted prescription face masks,” masterpieces of design. (AIG)
* Puffins. Not only are they brilliant flyers, but also briliant swimmers, which shows us a designer killing two birds with one stone. Here two problems are met with one solution, it can be said without any doubt that this is brilliant design!
* Giraffes. The giraffe has the problem of drowning it's brain in blood when it stoops down to drink, and fainting every time it returns it's head to full height. But these two problems aren't problems at all for giraffes. Again we see two problems met with one clever contingency. The giraffes' brain actually has a structure like a sponge, that absorbs the blood when it bends down to drink and slowly releases the blood when it returns to full height.
* Bilateral symmetry The ladybird has a perfectly symmetrical dome-shell that tucks it's wings neatly underneathe the shell. Not only is this a compact and efficient design, but organisms such as this beatle are bilaterally symmetrical. You could cut them in half down the middle and have a symmetrical mirror image of the other half. This is brilliant aesthetically and for efficiency. If designs were thrown together then symmetry would surely not be relevant. For example, a ferrari is bilaterally symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing, because it is not thrown together, but thoughtfully designed. Usually "neat packaged" symmetrical designs are the best sort unless there is a requirement for asymmetry. And there is an order to the universe, in that things such as wings require symmetry and balance.
See the bumps on the front of a humpback whale’s flipper? [Picture available only in Creation magazine.] What sort of designer would design such a thing, rather than a smooth, sleek flipper?
Engineers and US Naval Academy scientists have inadvertently answered that question: an incredibly ingenious designer—one whom aircraft designers can learn much from!1
They used scale models of a flipper 56 cm (22 inches) long. One was smooth, and the other had the little bumps, called tubercles. In a wind tunnel, the smooth one behaved like a typical aeroplane wing. But the one with the tubercles had 8% better lift and an astounding 32% less drag. It also resisted stalling (drastically losing lift) at a 40% steeper wing angle.
If that could be applied to aeroplanes, the better lift would make takeoff and landing easier; the lower drag would mean less fuel would be wasted; and the better stall resistance would be a huge safety advantage. The researchers propose that the tubercle design would also greatly benefit propellers, helicopter rotors and ship rudders.2
So why does this bumpy structure work so much better? The tubercles at the front of the flipper break up the flow of fluid (liquid or gas), and force it into the fluted valleys in between. This generates vortices (eddies) that keep the flow attached to the top surface of the flipper. This increases lift and resists stalling.
Shark species that can hurtle through the ocean at high speed—up to 80 km per hour (50 mph)1 —have a number of special features that allow them to do that, e.g., the tiny scales on the surface of their skin.
‘It’s like the difference between pushing a box over ball bearings instead of dragging it along the floor’—Dr Amy Lang, University of Alabama Each scale is just 0.2 mm (0.008 inch) long and is made of tough enamel—if you touch shark skin it feels like rough sandpaper. You might at first think that a perfectly smooth surface would be better for speed but in fact it’s been known for some time that the scales actually reduce drag.2 And now researchers have discovered another special characteristic of shark skin. In light of evidence that some shark species may bristle their scales during fast swimming, engineers decided to see how lifting the scales on end affects water flow over the shark.
Using models of bristled shark skin in a water tunnel experiment, researchers from the University of Alabama’s Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics Department and their colleagues observed that at high speed, tiny vortices or whirlpools formed within the cavities between the scales.3 (The scales were raised at an angle of 90º to the surface of the skin.) The effect of these vortices was to form a kind of ‘buffer layer’ between the fast moving fluid and the skin’s surface, thus preventing a turbulent wake from forming behind the shark. In other words, reducing drag.
For me it's simple, the induction is endless, most of the "problems" can be put down as foggy thinking or genetics and disease leading to less efficiency. The fact is that this level of design should be expected if there is a designer.
(I'll let you put it where you want, you guys can bash it out, I personally won't argue facts).
Somewhere north of 90% of the words are quotes from other websites, not your own words.
If the quotes were of evidence then I might not consider it a problem, but they're just someone else arguing for your point of view. I'd like to see evidence supporting the point of view, and I'd like to see arguments in your own words.
Qualities like beautiful, fast, amazing, etc., are subjective. What is beautiful, fast or amazing to one person is not for another. You need to offer some objective criteria and evidence.
If you decide you'd like to try a rewrite I'd be glad to give it another look.
I think generally, you would be correct. But I think facts that are, for example, "amazing" usually serve as self-evident. On a personal level they might not amaze you. For example a magician's trick does not amaze or impress me, it bores me, but the thing of itself still has it's value.
For example, it is not an epithet to state that, that race car is amazingly FAST!.
When we see a hummingbird flying in slow motion, it is amazing. Or if we consider the contraflow lungs that make aviation possible, that is amazing design. It's not a claim it is a fact.
Evolutionists and creationists agree there is design, it's just that they dispute how that design came about. But rather I am saying, in a world without a designer, we would expect average design, glue and sticky-tape but in a designer-world we would expect to see amazing designs.
The question really, is, what is a good design?. If we show designs that are unquestionably brilliant, then it stands to reason that the person saying they are not good designs, has an agenda.
I don't need terms such as, "amazing" because that much is obvious. If a race car obviously goes amazingly fast, a person that hates race-cars might counter, "it is not fast or amazing" because to them it isn't. But objectively, designs are there and they present morphological contingencies to physical problems. Such as the shark example. The problem is drag, and how to reduce it. Are we going to say that this is not a good solution and therefore not a good design? Then that begs the question; what WOULD qualify a design?
In my opinion, evolutionists will not qualify what would make a good design unless they knew posteriori that such a design is not attainable.
i.e. Their agenda is to not accept anything that would qualify as a good design.
I say, qualify a good design, and accept reality, even if it does not favour your cause.
You say, "point of view". In a way you are right, it takes a point of view to appreciate how good something is. If you have a worldview that says that designs are put together, and not amazing, then you will ignore the amazing and pass it off as inexplicable.
I think there is an induction in nature, that shows that there are indeed amazing designs as we would expect to see. The evidence only requires observation and comprehension. The facts are there, but you can lead a horse to water and that won't mean it will drink.
There are problems for design=designer that I acknowledge but have not mentioned, such as the Problem of Evil and other factors, but to qualify a good design should be simple.
It's a good point, I have it all written down but it is too long, but usually what makes a design, is how something is arranged, specifically. We can infer this from KNOWN designs.
For example, a wall isn't merely what it is made from, (cement and bricks), but it is how it is arranged that makes it a design.
The metal parts in a car, the carburetor, for example, is another good example of determining design.
We agree there is design (evo/creo,), it's how it got there.
For qualifying, "good" design, we would expect those designs to be used, by lesser designers.
Humans use bio-mimicry. If those designs in biology, they borrow from, where not good designs, then why would designers use them?
This shows us 2 things.
1. Human artificial designers "NEED" to borrow from biological designs. 2. If those biological designs were not good, why would there be bio-mimicry?
For these clear logical reasons, it is self-evidence that good design exists, as we would expect it to, given an all-wise designer.
The only reason to deny that examples of bio-mimicry are not good design, would be because you had a motivation that meant that you do not want good biological designs to exist.
(More about, "arranging" matter, it should be noted that a different reading from the DNA code, will determine what is conctructed. We see it is how the biological matter is arranged that makes it what it is, just like with the brick wall. So a monkey and a man might be made of the same, "stuff", but it is how they are arranged/constructed, that makes them designed.)
It should be noted that I am claiming very specifically that these facts would be consistent with a wise-designer. Any other "inferences" you think I am making, well, those opinions were entirely invented by your own synapses. (Not you specifically, Percy, but the readers.)