RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2006,16:08   

Quote
17. DaveScot // Oct 29th 2006 at 8:37 am

ScaryFacts

Snowflakes don’t look designed. They are not assemblages of interdependent parts that perform a function. Machines are designed. Snowflakes are merely repetitive crystal patterns. They look pleasing, not designed. Anyone who thinks a snowflake looks designed has no understanding of engineering or design.

Comment by DaveScot — October 29, 2006 @ 8:37 am

Again Dave is implying that his gut feel is better than someone else’s because he is an engineer.

But a task of determining whether a non-man-made object was or was not intentionally designed is not an engineering activity. When we engineers are inventing, there is no question as to the existence of intent; our own intent is obviously in play. When we are reverse-engineering a human-made object or system there is likewise no question of the existence of intent; the original human designers obviously also had intents (the original intents are often not completely known, but that's not the point.)

It is true that we engineers see a lot of intentionally constructed structures and processes, but if we take on the task of “detecting design” (detecting intentionality) in nature then our experience is as likely to give us bias as it is to give us insight.

--------------
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]