Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 31 2007,14:44)|
| † † |
|Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 31 2007,15:18)|
|Just to complete the thought above. |
Crandaddy: † † † † †
|Why oh why do people think that mechanism is so necessary to design detection? Why canít they see that minds donít operate by any mechanism that we can understand and that mechanism resides in the absence of design.|
The term "design" has several meanings, including "to plan". But the claim of Intelligent Design isn't merely that the Designer had a thought, but that the Designer manipulated biology. And this requires a mechanism. And the mechanism connects the Designer with his creation.
Your distinction is calls to mind Howard Van Till's oft repeated distinction of the "mind-like" versus "hand-like" phases of any instance of design - and ID's obstinate silence on the latter.
To complicate things, Dembski has insisted that people should not think of Intelligent Design as a Designer constructing things "to spec." (This is to shore up the "intelligent design does not mean optimal design" argument.)
So, even if design theory doesn't need to match evolution's "pathetic level of detail" in explaining how the eye was designed, it still has to come up with a mechanism for why it was 1) designed so poorly (necessitating surgery and my contact lenses) or 2) what messed with the Designer's original design.
Which means I'm finally going to read a certain essay by Dembski. (Whoop-de-doo, I think I can actually turn it into a homework assignment, and I'm gonna. Exaptation. It exists, people!
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr