quote:The Silly Design Institute's mission is to make Americans fully aware of both sides of the Design debate, whether they want to be or not.
We feel that both sides of the design debate need to be provided in schools and in the media, to inform the public and the students so that they can make up their own minds and not be dictated to by self-serving organizations, ...
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 of 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).
And it occurs to me that the variety and intermingling of the various ways of sexual reproduction would have a high SI value (SI - the Silliness Index - for comparing the relative silliness of different features, the higher the SI the higher the probability of Silly Design). Message 23 touches briefly on some aspects of this, but it needs to be studied in great detail to fully comprehend the depth of silliness involved.
quote:This assumes a fair degree of development, capability, education and intelligence on the part of the observer. A "Poison Dart" Frog cannot look at a watch and discern that it is a designed object, and neither could a native person unschooled in the concepts of manufacturing such products ... yet he is capable and intelligent enough to discern the cause and effect (and how to make use of) the frog's venom. There are, in fact, historical documents recording where explorers showed watches and the like to such unschooled natives and the natives thought that they were magical objects rather than manufactured things.
The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.
Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.
An open-minded skeptic will consider the possibility of a designer, and be skeptical that it exists due to lack of objective empirical evidence. In essence will make no decision yay or nay until there is evidence one way or the other.
The "design" could be as simple as creation of the universe with all the physics etc laws so that life would form and evolve with no other effort required, or as complex as micromanaging every little puff of wind, every little movement of atoms, obsessively directing everything.
Personally I favor the former as the latter seems inept, error prone, myopic and fumbling, focusing on one problem at a time regardless of consequences that then have to be taken care of in unending ineptitude.
Curiously, it seems religions tend to favor the latter.
as contradictory to things we already know to be true.
But you don't.
But we do.
Things like the extreme age of the earth being necessarily way older than all YEC pipe dreams. The evidence is everywhere, from radiometric age, to tree rings, to relative age of sedimentary layering, to astronomical changes of the moon affecting the earth's rate of spin over time, recorded in coral heads confirming extreme old age.
You yourself cannot begin explain the simplest data of tree rings, you've said so.
All reason and logic are NOT on the side of ID as well as YEC. ...
There, fixed it for you.
... You have to ignore all that to make your dating methods superior. Like all methods that seek to reach into the prehistoric past they can't be corroborated. ...
Except they are corroborated every time they agree from one method to the other, every time they correlate.
... You get one reading based on a theory and that's all you have. You need a lot more than that. ...
And we HAVE a lot more that that, we get thousands of readings, and we get readings from multiple labs with different methods from the same sample and surprise: they agree. You have absolutely no idea how much work is done on dating methods to calibrate and correlate dates.
And if you continue to disagree then start at Message 2 and try to prove them wrong. You won't last. CRR just gave up on doing that after only 3 posts ... will you be the next creationist to run away from reality?
Note you should answer on that thread rather than here, as the age dating is not this thread topic.
... Meanwhile the logic and reason wishful thinking that support the argument of design and irreducible complexity ...
There, fixed that for you.
... should be enough to call the dating methods into question.
Except that they say absolutely nothing about the dating methods. This is a stretch even for you Faith.
Message 74: Come to think of it, I don't know how the dating methods relate to ID. Although I jumped in here to defend the logic of ID, I'm not a follower of ID and don't know whether it's Old Earth or Young Earth.
And again, the topic is the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time so this is off topic as well as foolish.
Actually, some unicellular organisms do have to have sex with themselves to be able to reproduce. Those organisms don't have to wear clown uniforms or paint their faces red or even blush about it. So, what's your point?