pz

Of course it is stupid design. The only reasonable interpretation is that these are evolutionary relics. However, we have to remember that this is an argument being made to clueless, unscientific people with an a priori commitment to supernatural creation/design and teleological imperatives. They were designed with non-functional eyes because they don't need them (or perhaps because they are being punished for having eaten of the Gnat of Knowledge), but they still have eyes because the Great Designer plans to create a slimy savior in a few millennia, who will lead his people out of the darkness and found a sighted salamander kingdom. Wait a little longer and the design will unfold.

Never mind that there isn't a speck of evidence for design. The desperate, unfounded desires of many people who wish for proof of purpose in their lives is all that is necessary.

Clutch

I love the list. But it's plain why Vanderwhyning wants a meticulous proof that any of these examples constitutes poor design: no such proof can be given that doesn't presuppose knowing the intentions of God.

In short, you need a proof that any such design is defective relative to how God wanted it to be. Now, you can of course hammer on the issue of what sort of God would want things to be this way or that way, but bear in mind that you're dealing with people who think that the naturally caused agony and death of infants is part of the Grand Perfect Plan. You're not going to embarrass them by saying, "God wanted moles to have eyes that don't work?", no matter what of tones of disbelief you use.

On the other hand, by bringing this out into the open, the list helps to illustrate a point that eviscerates any sort of ID-ology: No phenomenon provides evidential support for a designer without a specification of the designer's preference to produce such a phenomenon. A lightless universe of uniformly distributed dust would lend as much evidential support to the existence of a designer who liked that sort of universe, as our universe lends to the existence of a designer who likes our sort of universe. Evidentially speaking, ID-ology has nothing to do with the empirical nature of the actual world, which explains its curious unsusceptibility to being made scientific.

Vanderzyden

Magnificent? Hardly. At this point it is not quite intriguing.

Here's my suggestion: Infidels out to find someone with better qualifications to be a moderator. I have asked you this before and have yet to receive an answer:

Again, I wonder, do you teach your students to follow you in your insulting, degrading, acidic style? Do you encourage them to focus on fighting and mockery instead of formulating justified beliefs?

Note: If you want me to stop asking you such questions, then immediately cease your insults directed at me.

Since you are a moderator, you would also benefit the efficiency of these discussions by withholding you consistently peripheral, insustantial contributions.


Vanderzyden

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Oolon,

It is a long list. Do you expect the reader to go most of the way through it to find a comprehensive examination of a particularly good example of "poor design"? If that is your expectation here, then it is unreasonable.

I don't have time at the moment for a detailed reply. But let me say this, for now: I am not shifting the burden. You are the one presenting the list. It is quite appropriate for your audience to require sufficient elucidation from you to indicate that time is worth spending on these supposed "difficulties".

There are many aspects to discuss concerning a "poor design", such as time, actual function, and correct observation. However, I've been down this road before, and I will not invest much time until the best examples are explained sufficiently.


Vanderzyden

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Xixax

VZ, if your time is valuable such that you cannot take time to read the post in detail, and then post a reply with some relevance as well, it would be better if you did not reply at all.

My personal pet peeve is when someone jumps onto a thread, makes an unsubstantiated claim, or some ridiculous request, and then complains of not having the time to fully delve into the subject ( although they seem to have an endless amount of time to tell you why it's still wrong anyway, and debate whether or not they're being treated fairly ).

You want the benefit of having disagreed without the work involved. You cannot have both. The original post provided numerous examples ( with great supporting links that you seem to be ignoring btw ). It involved a great deal of time and detail. If you have an objection ( and it's clear you do ), it is up to you to either:

A) Keep it to yourself until such time as you can back it up, or risk being ridiculed for repeating your pattern of evasiveness.

B) Make a substantial reply to at least -one- point in the original post.

If you prefer to do neither, then you are earning the disrespectful tone you recieve here. I would personally prefer it didn't happen either, as it sidetracks the discussion. However, it is warranted considering your behavior.

lpetrich

Vanderzyden, why don't you give us examples of this alleged behavior? And why don't you try to demonstrate that none of us has made any substantive points?

I propose that failure to deliver be grounds for moving this thread to Rants, Raves, and Preachings.

rebelnerd

Yea, sure, right. Let's see if you ever find time. I doubt you could even make a point by point rebuttal of one of the items in the OP.

If you do somehow find the time to rebut one of the subjects in the OP, could you please grace us with what the correct observation should be?

(Weaseling detector showing activity....)

Why don't you condescend and enlighten us with a rebuttal of one example? Could you maybe give us an example of why a designer would put eyes on a blind fish who lives in darkness?

Filo

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>

Dr Rick

...or an appendix in a human? Cmon', Vanderzyden, address just one of these directly. How can either one be the product of intelligent design?

Rick

Nameless One

Very cool list.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

scigirl

HAHAHAH! This is a very interesting argument - "There is too much evidence here for evolution, therefore it isn't true!"

Yet he has time to whine about the moderators.

So vanderzyden's rebuttal to Oolons long list:
1. It's too long
2. I don't have time
3. pz is a meanie

Do you have anything substantial to add to the rebuttal, Vander?

scigirl