Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
26 online now:
(26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 167 of 219 (650775)
02-02-2012 5:40 PM


Example of ID or SD?
Here is an example of a dog's coat that was obviously designed by a higher power. Is this an example of Intelligent Design or Silly Design?


Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Wounded King, posted 02-02-2012 7:24 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2012 8:43 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 202 of 219 (653020)
02-17-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Panda
02-17-2012 11:38 AM


Yeah - but you gotta be glad to see someone that can actually write coherently, no?

I find Genomicus a refreshing change after the likes of Dawn Bertot.

Absolutely. I'm enjoying reading his writings. I think its a shame that hooah is being such a disrespectful jerk toward them. He's hurting the quality of this discussion board and tarnishing us as a community.

Stick around Genomicus, we're not all assholes.


Now I get to add "hypocrite" to Theo's list of qualities

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Panda, posted 02-17-2012 11:38 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 203 of 219 (653021)
02-17-2012 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 5:19 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
In essence, hooah asked why I think the bacterial flagellum displays properties of rational design.

The problem is that displaying the properties of rational design doesn't lead us to any conclusion. Things that aren't designed can look designed. Things that are designed can look like they weren't.

"Looking desinged" doesn't help us in distingiushing design.

If poor design is evidence against the telic hypothesis, then any system that displays rational design is evidence in favor of the telic hypothesis. There's no reason why the road can't go both ways.

Poor design is *not* evidence against the telic hypothese: it could have been a Poor Designer after all.

What poor design is evidence against is an intelligent powerful and benevolent God. Creationists typically get into that part while these neo-IDists seem to be seperating themselves from it. Although, we still have that "intelligent" qualifier and some of the 'designs' we see are quite silly and suggest that the presumed designer maybe wasn't all that intelligent afterall.

Make sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 5:19 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 9:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 210 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:49 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019