Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
38 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,774 Year: 16,810/19,786 Month: 935/2,598 Week: 181/251 Day: 10/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
Panda
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(3)
Message 200 of 219 (653013)
02-17-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by subbie
02-17-2012 11:16 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
subbie writes:

I gotta tell ya, Geno, so far you're leaving a whole lot of unanswered questions and not answering many, if any.


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.

Anyway - back to the discussion...
As you were.


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 199 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 11:16 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2012 12:22 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1970 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 didn’t have a proper rear bumper and there were also no reinforcement’s 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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1970 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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1970 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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1970 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019