Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2013,09:29)|
Design = manufacture
ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture. The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.
No doubt IDists do at times use the term "design" when they are talking about manufacture. But Behe and Dembski actually define design to be purposefulness.
Michael Behe defines “design” as “the purposeful arrangement of parts.” He says that he has detected such design in, for example, the bacterial flagellum. But he does not claim to be one of the people who discovered the arrangement of parts in the flagellum; he learned about that from scientists working in labs. Also note that he does not claim to have discovered the purposes the Designer has assigned to the flagellum or to any of its parts. So this “design” that Behe says that has detected is a free-floating purposefulness. (Dembski calls it the “complement of regularity and chance.”)
As you say, they are not using the term "design" the way it is used by people involved in either design or production. For engineers, in particular, purposes and intents are more closely related to the concept of requirements, not design. The IDist use of the term "design" is alien to engineers. I gather that they use the term the way it is often used in philosophy and theology.
In engineering, a design is an arrangement (a pattern) of parts. The design process is the process of coming up with an arrangement of parts. When we engineers read a design specification or attend a design review for a system, we expect to learn about what its parts will be, how they will be arranged, and how they will interact to fulfill the system’s purposes (its requirements).
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