paleonet RE: Imperfect Design

From

Date
In-Reply-To

Reply-To

Yes, it seems that an intelligent designer would not have designed the imperfect world that exists. But, since evolution, or natural selection, can only act upon on what is there, one winds up with a world filled with things that marvelously and strangely do what they do in spite of, not because of, the way they were 'designed.' Prima facie, ID seems to be arguing that the designer knows nothing about biomechanics or much of anything. In fact, it seems the intelligent designer jury-rigged a lot of things, sometimes answering questions that no longer exist. This is an imperfect, not an intelligent designer, looked at from the organismal view of the universe. In some ways it is an ancient argument: man is the center of the universe--designed in the image of God.

So maybe it's a nefarious plot by atheists to discredit monotheistic religions along the lines of proving the intelligent designer is an idiot. Or a C student and there is an intelligenter designer who designed a better, parallel universe. Humans are the clay ashtray (probably candy dishes today) that didn't get taken home to Mom.

ID seems to argue, mostly, that there are a lot of religious people who have no Faith, along with no science. It's the worst of all worlds: God is not miraculous, science requires Faith.

This is the problem with arguments against ID. Whatever you argue requires you to assume that the ID argument is actually about the design of the universe when it is simply one man's crisis of faith and inability to appreciate the wonder of the natural world. It's also a very culturally modern argument, ID is, as Christians never before lived so comfortably in the world that they grew audacious enough to claim they could read the mind of God.

Oh, but, if the intelligent designer designed evolution what an intelligent designer she is.

Kleo Pullin

From:  Roy Plotnick <plotnick@uic.edu>
Reply-To:  paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
To:  paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Subject:  paleonet ID and function
Date:  Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:45:18 -0500
>I've been mulling over potential arguments against ID from a
>biomechanics viewpoint.  I've seen a number of mentions of the idea
>that the  "knee is badly designed, the back is badly designed, the
>retina is inside-out etc..."  What I have not seen discussed in this
>context, however, is the fundamental postulate of ID; i.e., that
>some biological systems are so complex that removal of even one part
>leads to failure - i.e..,  "irreducible complexity." What I am
>thinking  is that even if true, it would actually be an argument
>against an "intelligent designer," i.e., a competent engineer would
>design systems against such a situation, such as building in
>redundancies wherever possible (the multiple fuel sensors on the
>space shuttle come to mind).   I've discussed this with Steve Vogel
>at Duke and he puts it (with his typical eloquence)  like this
>"Maybe minimal use of redundancy, a terrifically effective way to
>reduce the change of disabling failure, in nature, is evidence
>against intelligent design. After all, if something is 99% reliable
>and backed up with something else that's 99% reliable, you have gone
>from a chance in a hundred of trouble to a chance in ten thousand.
>Two things don't halve the worry, they reduce it a hundred-fold!"
>Offhand, the only redundant systems I can think of is being able to
>breath through your nose and mouth and that some systems (e.g.,
>kidneys) are paired.
>
>My question to all of you is if anyone else has made an argument
>along this line.   If they haven't I'm going to pursue it further.
>-Roy
>
>--
>Roy E. Plotnick
>Professor
>Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
>University of Illinois at Chicago
>845 W. Taylor St.
>Chicago, IL 60607
>plotnick@uic.edu
>office phone: 312-996-2111     fax: 312-413-2279
>lab phone: 312-355-1342
>web page: http://www.uic.edu/~plotnick/plotnick.htm
>"The scientific celebrities, forgetting their molluscs and glacial
>periods, gossiped about art, while devoting themselves to oysters
>and ices with characteristic energy.." -Little Women, Louisa  May
>Alcott
>
>