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 >  

Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2006,00:33   


So when it comes to recognizing design an engineer seems to be the expert with the most “weight”, right? As an engineer and patent maven in the computer and factory automation fields it is my professional opinion that the molecular machinery resident in every living cell is the product of intelligent agency. It’s inconceivable the source could be anything else. -ds

Dave's professional engineering experience does not give him experience with the question at hand. Engineers don't "detect design" in the way the phrase is meant by IDers.

In actual engineering work, there is never an issue of whether or not an intelligent agency was involved in producing a product. In ID, the involvement of an intelligent agency is the entire issue.

Anyone can make analogies between (1) the processes and structures we see in nature and (2) the processes and structures invented by humans. But we are still left with the question of whether the natural things required an intelligent agency.

It's as if he's saying that Paley's argument would have been stronger if Paley had been an expert watch designer.

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]