Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

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.

---

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.

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?

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.

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}

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?

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.

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.

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