Distinguishing "designs"

He made two very important points actually.1. " it still could be possible to have the bad designs we see today, if that was the will or intent of the designer."2. " deliberately choosing something that is just barely good enough to be sold, but not good enough to last. They fulfill their design criteria beautifully"It depends on what the intention of the designer is. If you look at a race car, you could say the designer is an idiot BECAUSE the tyres cook after a few miles, the engine only lasts a few hundred miles, the parts cost thousands, the fuel economy is the worst ever, it's uncomfortable, etc, etc, etc..Ofcourse, that all changes if the designer designed it to last for one race.

It is acceptable to reasonable people, to test the implications of someone's claims.Goddy shown that a design can be bad, on purpose. That has nothing to do with make-up things or people who argue badly, creationists or whoever.

Hi Neddyboy.I pretty much agree with you, because you don't seem to have made the mistake of saying, therefore the whole universe has no intelligent input.Parsimony doesn't give us the ability to infer anything of great significance, like Dawkins has argued.One main point here, which is important to this issue, is that of the possibility of intention by a posited designer, and function. VERY easy to look at poor function, and think that it shouldn't be that way, without considering the designer's intentions.With the racing car example, the person doesn't know the intention of the designer, so this can show that if we do not know God's intentions, then we might incorrectly concluded something about him.So, yes - you seem to have the scientific support, that evolution works without a designer.The problem is the appearance-of-design, as you and Para' have hit on. I concede that the evolutionary mechanisms seem to show that there is ONLY an appearance of design, BUT there is aesthetic design to consider, and the potential goal of said designer. You can make a ferrari, or a skoda. I am confident enough to posit that the ferrari was made to be a bit more aesthetically pleasing.For a God-believer, it is hard to swallow that not only is there this Jesus guy - but that it looks like things are designed. Talk about being set up for disapointment. Lot's of people, such as you perhaps, are natural pantheists and are absolutely amazed by the diversity of life and all the cool little species, from the gibbon to the fowls in Ned's forest. If God is a person, he might also have intended a glorious universe, like I intend a glorious painting when I do my artwork.(Refer to RAZD's God-art topic)The good thing is - the lack of answers enables us to not be forced to believe or not believe. I envy your position, as it would sure be easy to just conclude in one's head, that god isn't necessary - and then one can atleast not have all the obligations that come with belief.Well, I could go on all day, but Para' says my posts are already too long and boring a prospect.

Officially, my position is that there is the genuine logically sound conclusion Ned stated, that there is no designer required for evolution. (similar words.)It is not mutually exclusive and it is also logically sound, to hold that a God could exist, with intentions for the universe he would have made.No arguments thus far, have refuted logic itself, which soundly permitts that a God could exist.Yes - you can posit the pink unicorn, but you ASSUME God is "made up". The P.U. IS MADE UP. First prove God is made up.I have highlighted it for you; BUT we are only talking about evolution.If you think the conclusion that evolution needs no designer somehow has a baring on the possibility of God's existence then I'm confused.You can't officially infer anything about God's existence, from this issue. "Fantasies" doesn't prove that God is a fantasy. It must be assumed he is. This is why epistemology allows for "truth" outside of human knowledge. This is why atheists will not grow to their correct agnostic position in life, because biases such as "fantasies" don't come from the principle of parsimony - they come from the atheist ideology, which is Dawkin's error.That I mention God doesn't mean I am saying that God is involved - I have not argued for God. I merely hold that God possibly exists...As for the boring post bit, just humour, as I thought you might read my post. ONLY pertaining to the direct claim.Unless there is a theory of everything, your comment can not be applied to the "whole" picture. Nobody is involving God - as I have agreed that God is not required.We are not scientific beings that live in a scientific bubble, only concluding scientifically. I observe many beliefs that are reasonable. My only reason to not allow the possibility of God, is atheist argument. No objective reasonings require this.(I'm just trying to be clear in this post, sorry if I come off as an asshat who thinks he knows everything, I assure you, I fall woefully short in many areas.)

Hi Nem. You sure covered a lot of stuff there. I'm very tired so I'll address what I can, but the evolutionary issues, well, I am not an ardent proponent of any position these days, so I willlet others debate you on them. My problem is that you can apply it across the board, but we can only use it on what we have. For all we know, without God, the universe itself could not contain itself. Yes. Is that a bad thing though? Afterall, we can only claim our bible is true, I think freewill is important and would hate to force my beliefs on others.I don't think we need tehologies to support us, just the brains God has given us.And agree with your link. I think many many people are comfortable critics because they themselves have only envy for those in the arena.Good to hear your opinions, I am open minded to possibilities.