Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 7:55 PM
334 online now:
Coragyps, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (5 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,821 Year: 25,427/21,208 Month: 1,054/2,338 Week: 175/450 Day: 47/52 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
Panda
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 211 of 219 (653196)
02-19-2012 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:49 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Genomicus writes:

Poor design is evidence against the thesis of a rational designer, is it not?


No, it is not.
Poor design is not evidence against a rational designer, it is only evidence against an infallible designer.

e.g. Ford Pinto:

quote:
The Pinto had a very dangerous design flaw, which made the car prone to explode during rear-end collisions. The Pinto didnít have a proper rear bumper and there were also no reinforcementís around the gas tank so it was vulnerable to puncture which caused explosion on impact. The doors were also poorly designed and were susceptible to jamming after accidents. Many lawsuits were filed because of the safety issues of the Pinto, and then Ford came under heavy fire when a company memo showed that Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off all of the lawsuits from Pinto related deaths than to pay for a vehicle redesign.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:49 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 6:16 AM Panda has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 212 of 219 (653197)
02-19-2012 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Panda
02-19-2012 6:08 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
Poor design is not evidence against a rational designer, it is only evidence against an infallible designer.

That is true to an extent. However, when you're talking about, say, the backwards wiring of the eye, that speaks against a rational designer because any rational designer would have designed the eye differently - or so it seems to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 6:08 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 6:40 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 213 of 219 (653198)
02-19-2012 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 6:16 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Genomics writes:

However, when you're talking about, say, the backwards wiring of the eye, that speaks against a rational designer because any rational designer would have designed the eye differently - or so it seems to me.

And when looking at a car with an unreinforced petrol tank at the back, no doubt that would speak against a rational designer because any rational designer would have designed the car differently, no?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 6:16 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 6:44 AM Panda has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 214 of 219 (653199)
02-19-2012 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Panda
02-19-2012 6:40 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
And when looking at a car with an unreinforced petrol tank at the back, no doubt that would speak against a rational designer because any rational designer would have designed the car differently, no?

Not necessarily. A rational designer might also consider the cost of that design, and conclude that, based on the costs and current funds, it would be better to design the car with an unreinforced petrol tank.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 6:40 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 6:53 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 215 of 219 (653201)
02-19-2012 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 6:44 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Genomicus writes:

A rational designer might also consider the cost of that design, and conclude that, based on the costs and current funds, it would be better to design the car with an unreinforced petrol tank.

Correct.
The Pinto was poorly designed (it blew up people!) - but it was also rationally designed.
And that is why poor design is not contra-indicative of a rational designer.

{abe}
"That is true to an extent." and "Not necessarily." are indicative of a missing parameter.
But you have not yet provided the characteristic that would change the "sometimes" into an "always".

If "Poor design is not evidence against a rational designer" is only "true to an extent", then please define this extent.
And if "an unreinforced petrol tank at the back" would "Not necessarily" be designed by a rational designer then please explain how you would know either way.

Currently, it seems to me that you are arguing that if a thing is poorly designed then is was not designed by a rational designer.
But that assumes that a rational designer cannot make mistakes nor have his design constricted by external factors.

e.g.
If I was to design an eye, I can assure you that it would be:
a) poorly designed and
b) designed by a rational designer.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : clarified my {abe}


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 6:44 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 12:33 PM Panda has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 216 of 219 (653229)
02-19-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Panda
02-19-2012 6:53 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Okay. I guess the thing that's confusing me the most is that so often non-teleologists argue that poor design seen in nature is evidence of the blind watchmaker's tinkering and evidence against ID (hopefully, it doesn't seem like I'm ignoring your points, Panda). If I understand your position correctly then, sloppy design in nature is only evidence against an omnipotent deity-designer?

That is, of course, fine with me. But then you must agree that it's really only an argument against creationism, is it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 6:53 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by subbie, posted 02-19-2012 12:53 PM Genomicus has not yet responded
 Message 218 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 2:41 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 264 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 217 of 219 (653231)
02-19-2012 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 12:33 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
But then you must agree that it's really only an argument against creationism, is it not?

Except for the fact that most of us here have been around long enough to know that when IDers talk about an intelligent designer, they are talking about their god. We can sit here all day and argue the points that IDers make and show how there is no evidence to support them and that all the evidence is consistent with the ToE. And while we do that, we can pretend that we don't know that the designer is whatever deity the IDers want to think about. But at the end of the day, we all know where IDers want this to go, and we all know that the vast majority of public support that the IDers get for their public relations campaigns is from Christian fundamentalists. So while it's consistent with the public face of ID to say that it's only an argument against creationism, that hardly tells the whole story.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 12:33 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 218 of 219 (653253)
02-19-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 12:33 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Genomicus writes:

That is, of course, fine with me. But then you must agree that it's really only an argument against creationism, is it not?


If a particular brand of creationism claims perfect design, then yes - the lack of perfect design is an argument against it.
If a particular brand of creationism claimed that the planet was created and seeded with simple life forms which then evolved and changed of the millenia, then no - the lack of perfect design is not an argument against it.
Flawed design does not include nor exclude a designer without knowing more about the designer's capabilities, intentions and past actions.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 12:33 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 219 of 219 (653259)
02-19-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:49 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Quite true. The appearance of rational design does not help us in distinguishing design in a clear-cut manner. But it aids in assessing the degree of our suspicion of design. It is a clue.

But if it doesn't help in distinguishing design, then it isn't a clue.

Well, I guess it depends on what your goals are... If you just want to feel better about your suspicions, and don't care about logic, then I guess what you say is true.

But then, too, the native americans had a lot of clues that their rain dances worked, right?

For example, if the structure of the flagellum was poorly designed and hodge-podge, wouldn't that be a popular argument against the idea that the flagellum was designed? But it is not hodge-podge, so it is one clue in favor of viewing it as designed.

Designed by the process outlined in the Theory of Evolution, sure. Nobody thinks it was randomly assembled. But we still don't have anything about it being purposefully designed.

Poor design is evidence against the thesis of a rational designer, is it not?

I don't think so. Rational designers can make poor designs, even on purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:49 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017