Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect

I've said this before somewhere, and I'll repeat it here: I think we should discriminate between design per se and intelligent design. There is design in nature, no doubt in my mind about that. But it is emergent, not planned (as by an intelligence). The features we see emerging through evolution are solutions to problems posed by the environment. As such, they exhibit an engineering-type development. Problem: nectar too deeply buried in a flower. Solution: adjust tongue length. Problem: too much harmful radiation. Solution: add more pigment to skin. Problem: average jump too short to make it to the next tree. Solution: stretch skin between limbs a bit more.But the design need not come from an intelligent source. It can be demonstrated in computer models that blindly following some simple rules can create very 'designoid' structures and behaviour. There is the example of genetic algorithms, frequently mentioned in discussions like these. Another example is Conway's "Game of Life", a cellular automaton that produces truly amazing things from three very simple rules.Science has discovered the rules that govern evolution. It appears that the simple application of these rules can account for everything we see in living nature, without the need to posit the existence of an intelligent creator.Mostly, the arguments of creationist come down to incredulity, which is caused by ignorance. What creationists need to do is learn more about the rules, acquire some mental hygiene and take a good look at the abundant evidence.O, hell. Why am I bothering?P.S. Those Batmanists are heretics. Robinism is the true path.

{Sorry, posted twice by accident.}[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-20-2003]

Your list of definitions includes only verbs, implying an 'actor'. I was thinking of 'design' as a noun. If every time you jump from a high tree in the general direction of a neighbouring tree you fly like a brick, then a new design of the skin between your limbs would be a pretty nifty idea, wouldn't it? Not to mention less painful. You wouldn't be bothered about the 'how', you'd just splatter yourself against a treetrunk instead of a planet, for a change. And you'd start wishing for the next improvement, being a bit more flight control. That's the 'design' I'm talking about. As I've explained, this design can come about without a designer, it's "gefundenes fressen" as it were, but it's design nonetheless, as in 'a solution for a problem'. Mmm... your description reminds me of some computer programmes I've had the pleasure of doing some maintenance on. I wonder what that means? There are exceptions, M. Take Zealot for example, he's at least trying. Don't believe everything they tell you... Catholicism preceded Protestantism. Ever tried to convince Protestants that they are the heretics, and not the Catholics?Robin rules.[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-20-2003]

I'm the one who is sorry, Mr Jack.
Thanks for the hint.

The wishing was done by the unfortunate flying furball after a rather hefty meeting with a treetrunk. Not quite. Moving from a simple structure to a more refined and sensitive structure happens all the time in evolution. Your apprehension of the idea of 'progress' is justified; however equating this movement with optimization of function is unwarranted. No, I'd call it 'once-good-enough-design becoming obsolete or outdated'. At least we can agree on that. You have my sympathy... Hey! Do you mind? Hah! Robin was saving the world three times over when Adam West was merely a naughty glint in the eyes of his mother.Cheers.

In the text you quoted I could find no insults, let alone faulty ones. Would you care to point out where MattS has insulted creationists? And could you also specify the faults?Cheers.