steve_h
Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2006,16:22) | The comment form is now open on the top thread at UD. I posted a comment. It's in the moderation queue. Let's see what happens.
In case you're wondering, the post is
| Quote | If a system inspires us to design something, is that evidence that the system itself was designed? When or when not?
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 4:11 pm |
and my comment is
| Quote | | If we notice a boulder laying on something, preventing the wind from blowing the something away, and we are inspired to make a paperweight, does the paperweight imply the boulder+something system was designed? |
and I just added another comment
| Quote | | If we see a hurricane blow a pine needle through a sheet of aluminum, and we're inspired to create air guns, does that mean the hurricane is designed? |
|
I added the following
| Quote | How about:
Lawn sprinkler. Designed to water a garden in much the same way that the natural water cycle might otherwise. As far as I can tell, the water cycle although arguably irreducibly complex, could have arisen by natural materialist means.
Log Effect Gas Fire: Designed to recreate the warmth and visual appearance of burning wood. TTBOMK a designer is not necessary to make wood burn.
Plasma Ball. Designed to imitate lightning , which although awesome, lacks specificity (as I have recently learned here), and therefore need not have been designed.
"Precious thing" / snow globe. Designed to conjure up a magical blizzardy experience. |
If it somehow makes it through, I imagine an obvious comeback would be "but they are not biological systems". The question didn't specify biological.
* "Precious thing" is a reference to "the league of gentlemen" but that's not important.
|
