Hi BobTHC, continuing from
Message 67 on the
Convergent Evolution - Reasonable conclusion? or convenient excuse? thread:
On this thread I have proposed an alternate design hypothesis (see
Message 1):
quote:
The Silly Design Theory (SDT, not to be confused with STD) is based on a very simple set of concepts: - the existence of design in natural systems is obvious, whether it is a human eye, a bird wing or the flagellum of a bacteria, there is a feature with a purpose;
- the preponderance of these purposeful features in all forms of life, from simple to complex, shows that a design process is at work;
- that the debate over whether the design is the result of natural forces or the intent of some cosmic designer cannot be resolved by investigation of the designs, because the natural forces could be designed by the cosmic designer as the means to achieve the end purpose of the designs;
- that the ultimate purpose of the designs can be determined by investigation of multitudes of features to see if they more accurately reflect (a) random design, the result totally natural forces, (b) highly specific design, for some intelligent purpose, or (c) variations on a silly design, for some silly (entertainment, amusement, reality tv) purpose;
- that the design purpose, as determined by rigorous scientific investigation, will then make clear whether the designer is (a) a Natural Nothing (NaNo), (b) an Intelligent Designer (IDr) or (c) a Cosmic Imp (CImp), and that this will then finally resolve whether there is or is not a designer as well as the nature of that designer: a metaphysical two-fer.
The Hypothesis to be tested, therefore, is that "life, the universe, and everything" show evidence of Silly Design (SD).
Curiously, I had a brief discussion here with another design proponent, and he was unable to show that
Neo-Paleyism explained the diversity of life better than the Silly Design Theory (in fact he never got out of the starting blocks to show that
anything was explained by Neo-Paleyism).
Also see the answer to the challenge he issued:
Message 96:
If you would like to show us what your made of and submit your better design proposal,(like two peckers or something) I would be gad to show you the reasons it is inferior to the current design.
Easy. Take just one example with the eye: if we combine elements of the octopus eye with the human eye we would have telescopic and microscopic vision, like the zoom lenses in cameras that we know are designed to cover a range of vision requirements and stay in focus. That would be intelligent design, yet such a design appears nowhere in the natural world. Is your designer less intelligent than human designers, that have done this, even though he already has all the parts necessary?
His answers are quite amusing.
Now, I happen to be a designer, so I know a fair bit about how design works, and how much "borrowing" goes on in the design field, and this is the kind of thing that I would expect to see if there is an active designer involved in the development and diversity of life on earth.
For
active design to be a valid hypothesis there should be instances of cross-over between lineages outside of hereditary lines, where features are "borrowed" wholesale from other lineages.
Now if you rule out active design, then you are left with passive design, where life evolves according to evolution, perhaps even beginning with abiogenesis occurring, with a universe designed for life to happen.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : msg link
™ Version 4.2
