Most of my life has been related to design. Over the years I have been a technical writer, trying to explain the functioning of something designed, and also to act as the intermediary between the designers and the users; a systems designer in the Cable Television industry designing CATV systems from the tiny (one serving about twelve houses at the base of a damn) to large ones over a thousand miles in extent; a computer programmer designing applications and networks and even some language work; in the fire service helping design tactics, procedures and even hardware and most recently, designing webpages.
There are significant differences that I can see between things designed by some intelligent (or in the case of Windows, semi-intelligent) entity and the designs we see in nature.
One key difference is in the area of rapid adoption of good ideas and cross implementation.
Good design adopts good ideas regardless of the source. An advance in one field is often adopted and implemented in other unrelated fields, and a good idea is very quickly adopted throughout the originating field. In fact, the process of adoption is so pervasive that we have had to create rules and regulations to limit the practice.
We call those rules, Patent and Copyright.
A second major difference in intelligent design is that in all cases, there is a predetermined goal and specified outcome. It could be to build it cheaper, or make it last longer or appeal to a market segment or get into production faster, but there is always some initial design criteria.
As I pointed out in
Message 8, we do not see those characteristics in biological critters.
Biological systems seem to have only one criteria, to be just good enough to last long enough to reproduce. Advances in one area are not incorporated and extended across all critters. There is no appearance of some predetermined goal or objective. There is no need for Patent or Copyright since there seems to be little or no adoption and co-option of ideas, of design.
While many may argue that they see apparent design, there is no indication of a designer. The only avenue they have is the unsupported allegation that if there is design there must be a designer. However, if they make that assumption, then looking at the outcome, biological critters, the only possible conclusion seems to be that ID stands for Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inelegant Designer or Inefficient Designer or Inexpert Designer or Insensible Designer or Idiotic Designer.
If there is a Designer that is responsible for the specific biological critters, then the Designer is an Idiot who needs to be fired.
If there is any case to be made for ID, I can only see it at the very basic levels, for example having a goal that life should continue and designing the process "Evolution" as the answer.
Aslan is not a
Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2
