Is there a legitimate argument for design?

Only one actually. But you need to make it good. Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design down to the subatomic level would be a good one to start with.

Whoa.......... please. I took your post as jest. Omniverous mentioned people having fun here on the forum. I thought you were doing that and I was participating.There is an old dirty joke that has floated around for many years. The joke is simply the question "Why did God design woman with the sewer so close to the playground". This joke is what I thought you were referencing. I see now not everyone has heard it.It appears that your question was a serious one.First, I don't recall asking anyone to point to bad design. Looking back at what I said, I believe what I asked for was something that was not sophistidated design.Are we going to jump over now to a similar debate on what sophisticated is?And, just to head off any future questions of a similar nature, nothing in MY model of design argues for a perfect creator reaching perfect creation. I argue only that design occurred. Future questions on quality of design I will have to respond as asked and answered.

I am sorry. I seem to have offended you somehow. Perhaps you think I was making a spurious remark. Let me explain and hopefully you will understand why I should not have asked for less.My particular belief system is that the universe(s) and all wihin are parts of a single entity which for lack of a better word is called the Tao.I wrote this in previous post 380:...........................
I don't mind being perfectly clear where I am coming from. I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in any of the Abrahimic dogma. I was raised a Baptist, but discarded that notion early in life. I have dabbled with the eastern religions and have settled on the Taoist cosmology as the one which most closely fits my acceptable worldview: in a nutshell... an Original Self Awareness (with ideas if you will) creating from Wu Chi (nothingness) the Tai Chi (duality) and from the Tai Chi all things. Nothing is said about the mechanisms for doing thus.Core Taoism really doesn't have a dogma (temple Taoism does, but that is not what I read). Their cosmological view is simple and very non-restrictive. Evolution fits nicely within it, if you can get used to the idea that there is a primordial intelligence and that it had some agency in bringing something forth out of nothing.My Taoist cosmology believes that this resulted from a self-aware singularity
...................Now, my belief system is that everything came from nothing. Everything was brought from nothing by an intelligence (presumably based on an idea or design).Everything from nothing includes all matter, even that at the sub-atomic level. I believe that design goes down to the subatomic level.That is the reason for the example I suggested. I fully expected others to give examples like you suggest, everyday stuff. I also had a reasonable expectation that I might get examples at the molecular level or lower. I was simply covering the most all-inclusive base before being asked.It was an effort to save time, not a spurious remark.I hope this helps

Coyote, i am truly sorry. No harm intended. My knees are occasionally bad. I try to keep my selse of humor about them. Shouldn't have assumed such with you.I am two for two screwups mistaking something else for humor. Going forward I will assume nothing is tongue in cheek and will reply with all seriousness.As an answer to you, I have other posts which state that evolution is within my belief system. I just don't believe it is all random mutation.
Given that, your opinion that knees are flawed design through evolution is not inconsistent with my belief.

I agree ID is a philosophical issue. There are many flavors of ID. I will also look at the Is ID Properly Pursued thread. thanksI also think ID is a science issue if it can be resolved with science. I think it could be, but I'm doubtful there will ever be direct ID science. I think if it is resolve with science it will be because of DNA research and the questions that will demand answer.Just my opinion. I might be wrong. I am sensitive about talking design to a designer without being perceived as talking out of school. I will try to be careful.As to the human eye, I probably don't know all the design flaws you do, I haven't really done much reading on it. My position is that something can be sophisticated without being ideal.... even being way less than ideal.In my original post, i probably should not have used the word sophisticated. Seeing sophistication in all of nature is true for me, but use of the word opens up the need to defend it to other people who have different standards of sophistication. NO, but if you recommend it, I will look. Thanks
ps, don't understand See my sig... is this directions somewhere? I don't recall Taoist readings that teach all is illusion. If you say its there, I believe you. I may even have read it and forgot. I agree illusion would be a tough nut to crack with you guys thanks RAZD. I will check out the other thread if I manage to survive this one!!

I don't see it relevant. Thanks Dr. Absolute, I recognized that love was an analogy. I didn't think the analogy was a great one and I truly don't mean that in a mean way. I guess using your analogy, if it was important enough to someone powerful enough, a science of love might be developed to satisfy one person's curiosity. I get how that might apply to my curiosity.I am not insane enough to believe science will actually ever spin off a branch just to prove/disprove the ID debate. My comment was that if you wanted to resolve the debate with science, then such science might be necessary.Reality is the "if" will never justify the "then'. I realize that.
Hope this is more clear. asked and answered I am a poor communicator. I tried to distinguish ideas used in the context of ID debate and ideas in daily use. Sorry, don't know what else to do. We just won't have a meeting of the minds on this one. I tried to make the case for a proposition. I tried to state what would be needed to consider the proposition. I have no illusions it is something that should ever be done. Resolving an argument just isn't worth it.It is all purely an intellectual exercise. An exercise in which I presumed to dabble in things like propositions for which i am certainly not trained. I don't take myself too seriously and I don't expect you to.

RAZD, I will respond to your note in pieces. What you say takes my mind to so many places that trying to respond in a single note would be rather lengthy.Found the signature block..... the proverbial snake that could have bit me I am aware some of the founding fathers were Deists. Way back when I read it I recall saying to myself, yep that's what I am too. I even have a vague recollection one of the founding fathers wrote on it... Jefferson maybe?I have not pursued finding a corpus of writing that defines what a deist is and fleshes out the entirety of the thinking. Do you have a recommendation on where to start?

Actually, after mentioning it, I remember that the joke went more on the lines of asking how we know God was not an architect. Answer - He put the sewer beside the playground.I like the six-pack idea too. Funny for us folks with twisted minds.And no, jokes don't have to make sense....... well maybe ... hmmmmAnd jokes provoke an emotional response. Sometimes intended, sometimes not.

Sage advice RAZD.... thanks. The last few days have taken their toll... but pretty much in a good way.

I am not clear what you mean here. Are you saying ID uses science to understand how ID works?perhaps, perhaps not. I will get over to that thread eventually. Gets into whether the why is relegated to intellectual musings or whether the why has something to do with the how. This is where I have trouble with the smugness of the science community.Science limits science to that which they can observe, measure, test, etc. ( I will say DoScience hereinafter). They then make the A Priori statement that anything that can be contradicted within that framework is at odds with reality.I don't know how to post a visual, but don't think I need it.Draw a large circle. The large circle is the population for:.....don't know the best way to describe it .........lets just call it the the no-bullshit, not illusion or imagination, REAL family of all that actually IS.Within the circle of that large family, I will call it TotalReality for convenience in this conversation, draw a smaller circle.Within this smaller circle, place all the things that man CAN observe, measure, test and validate, DoScience on, .Within that smaller circle, draw another smaller circle. In this circle place all the things science HAS observed, measured, tested and validated, DoneScience on.I don't believe that scientist would find objectionable the idea that one can move from the smallest circle to the next larger circle. That is everyday science... going from what has been done to what can be done within sciences' self-imposed constraints.I do see scientists objecting to the idea of DoScience on things that are admittedly real and possibly CanDoScience. I saw that right here on this thread when I mentioned ideas.... something admittedly real.Not being a scientist, I cannot make the judgement whether science CAN be done on ideas. I have no answers on how you might observe, measure, test, replicate, etc. ideas.Ideas may be CanDoScience or they may be CannotDoScience. I hope, if attempted, it turns out they are CannotDoScience. That would prove there is TotalReality beyond the box of CanDoScience. Given that final and absolute admission, scientists should be required to cease claiming that what they can't prove using their rules contradicts reality. My point exactly. See above. Look up the definition of A Priori and tell me that is scientific. asked and answered I think nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory.The scientific claim is valid only if you accept reductionist materialism as the only candidate for REAL I don't support illusions unless I want to read fiction.

RAZD,
Sorry your prior post got jammed up. That is what happened when I put quotes around it.I don't want to argue good design v bad design nor do I want to argue whether bad design negates intelligent design.I do want to address the notion of "something borrowed" as a precept to design.It may well be that design in the sense of "man-made design" can be argued this way, I just don't want to go there.I am arguing front-end design. I don't want to argue where that design came from other than to make the assumption that design is an idea derived from intelligence.Since the idea (design) involved in my notion is primal, it cannot by definition have anything to borrow from. All arguments requiring borrowing are therefore moot.If design is not, therefore, a good word to use, please give me a better one.

Please see my comments in Message 416 as to the relevance of ideas. If that does not answer your questions let me know and I will come back to this post.

I believe I answer this in Message 404. If not, let me know and I will come back to your objections.

I don't want to get hung up on semantics. If my statement causes confusion, please give me the constraints that science uses beyond which it presumes anything is not real. I will use those constraints with the same questions. Thanks

Please read Message 404. I think it is somewhat related to your objection.My posit is that there was original design from the gate. Everything from that, through evolution or devolution will not have lost evidence of design.In my view it is a tall order indeed to find anything that does not contain the footprint of design. You are welcome to your view.