Soapy Sam
Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
| Quote (Robin @ Mar. 01 2013,18:31) | | Quote | | Alan Fox: I agree that “no designer would do it that way” is a daft response to – well, what did you ask? – because nobody is giving the designer any attributes on which to base any supposition about the motives of any “designer or “agent”. |
I think that put in those terms, "no designer would do it that way" is a daft response. But of course, the context is significantly more broad. What Eric is failing to note (aside from the question(s) that prompted the responses he cites) is that the underlying assumption is that ID is the Logos of John. Ergo, if you have a designer with unlimited resources and unlimited capability, there are designs such an entity just would not do.
But even if we toss aside the creationist (wink wink, nudge nudge) slight-of-hand and assume that ID stands on it's own religiously-neutral ground, we can still assess some characteristics about a supposed designer. For instance, we have several different so-called "eye designs" out there. I would think that anyone who truly thinks that ID is a viable scientific concept would be at least attempting to explain why and at least to some extent compare and qualifying some eye designs (like the Mollusca) as "good" against others (such as the Vertebrate) as "not nearly as good". It might not reach to the level of "a designer would not do that", but I can't imagine anyone who would argue it's a design that makes sense given other, far superior designs.
Basically folks like Eric want everyone to accept as a default the idea that all of this grand complexity of life around us points to some waaaaaaay advanced designer, while handwaving away unexplainable elementary engineering differences and issues as irrelevant. Nobody who has any scientific curiosity would do that (see what I did there?).
ETA: typos |
Much of the complexity of life is directed towards minimising the excellent designs of other organisms. Giving predators good eyesight and prey good camouflage is somewhat redundant. If a single designer, it's a bit pointless; if multiple, they can't have been operating in full isolation - they must have had a peek at each other's spec, to know what conditions to design for.
But why aren't we all just photosynthetic?
--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G
BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington
|
