Joined: Sep. 2006
No gods...no masters...no chocolate. (I swear I'll quit.)
|Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2007,23:48)|
|Quote (Kristine @ April 04 2007,19:28)|
*Folds arms, nods, BOINK! disappears* Catch me now.
Aw Jeez, you're not gonna start addressing Dembski as 'master', are you?
But we can infer qualities about the Designer from the designs of this genius, found while hunting for Easter eggs at OE (I don't spend much time at that site). Have people already seen this?
|I've really got an ID bug in my bonnet! [I know the feeling.]|
And yes, as a young man I'm comfortable enough with my sexuality to put it that way.
Today I was thinking about design, design, Design! My dogs, they're designed. I'm, well, I'm designed too! It fascinates me that somewhere in a part of the universe inaccessible to the reach of science, we now know that there is an intelligence who has been working in some sort of shop, drafting up design after design and then releasing them here on Earth. Though we know little about the process employed by the designer (except, perhaps, as revealed through ancient texts), it's possible to draw some conclusions about the thinking of the designer from his designs. For one, it's clear the the designer is conservative with his designs. For example, he designed the vertebrate liver and then instantiated it in slightly-modified forms in various groups and sub-groups of vertebrates, modifying its design (and other organ designs) roughly in parallel to what evolutionists misguidedly describe as an "evolutionary tree." Through ID, though, we now know that these differences were design differences. "Oh, I need wings so my birds can fly!" thinks the designer. And so he takes the design for a reptilian forelimb and modifies it, fusing together digits and lightening the structure. "Oh, but I also need wings for my insects" thinks the designer, but this time he decides they might better be formed by modifying a design he created for larval insect gills. This is analogous to the way a programmer programs. He looks around at his code base and says, hmm, this new programming problem I have - what is the closest I've ever come to addressing it in the past? And then he takes some vaguely similar code and modifies it to address the latest programming challenge. To an observer looking at the evidence, the result can look a lot like structures somehow modifying themselves over the course of generations (perhaps through the hocus pocus of natural selection), but anyone with any sense can see that these are modifications of underlying designs that came from OUTSIDE the natural world (though the instructions for those designs ARE given to creatures to pass down to their descendants in the form of DNA). To say creatures are responsible for their own designs is like saying that computer algorithms are responsible for THEIR designs. I admit there is one small difference between computer algorithms and creatures - the latter reproduce, and contain mechanisms in their code to bring this reproduction about, while the former do not. But surely my metaphor is a sound one in all other respects.
The Designah: Bill I need drapes to go with the rug.
The Designah: Go to Home Depot and pick up some new ones.
Bill: Oh. Okay. [Does it]
The Designah: Now move the couch. No, I don't like it there. I need an endtable to go with the couch.
Bill: Okay, I obey. [Does it]
The Designah: Well, now that doesn't work because it doesn't match any of my etchings. Take it back.
Bill: Before I do, may I please ask [praying] is this in chronological or kairological time?
The Designah: We are talking withholding shimmies time if you don't do as I say. *Crack of thunder*
Bill: [Does it]
The Designah: This is fun.
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