Re: Who's Burden of Proof?

Howard wrote:
> I know of no person on this list who argues against the existence of a
> designer. So, the invitation quoted above is unlikely to generate
meaningful
> debate.

Okay, point taken. So, if an inference from a human designer to a divine
designer is a reasonable one, the next question concerns the design process.
Having been a design engineer for over 30 years, I can attest that good
designers have a great deal in common in their design processes. For one
thing, the overarching consideration for good designers is that the design
serves its purpose and works in the real world. This means that design
processes must be adopted that promote this. Accordingly here are a few of
the common strategies of good designers:

1) They fully flesh out the purpose and goals of the design.

2) They fully examine the constraints within which they must work.

3) They winnow out unnecessary elements that do not serve the overarching
goal and develop strategies to work around the unnecessary and/or
deleterious baggage of prior designs.

4) Since simplicity breeds reliability, they follow Einstein's maxim that
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

5) They utilized any existing, tested technology wherever they can.

6) They take existing technology that doesn't quite fit their needs, modify
it minimally and test it before incorporating it into their designs.

7) Since any unique design has design features that have a higher level of
risk(not working), they always design in open spaces for change that have
minimal impact on the rest of the design.

8) For modifications to existing complex systems, good designers keep
changes small and infrequent so that effects of the change can be evaluated
and modified before they become catastrophic.

9) They recognize the tentativeness of their analysis and extensively test,
in real world conditions, things that may have impact on what they value
most.

10) They continue to tweak the design as needed after production units hit
the streets.

11) They design to facilitate movement to future versions.

The main point in all this is that good designers take extremely seriously
the goal and purpose of their designs, leave as little to chance as
possible, and take an *active* role throughout the design process, into
production, and after distribution. I know of no good designers who would
allow chance to be a dominant force affecting or driving their designs.

Since God is the designer of the universe and these are the strategies of
good human designers, should we expect any less an active role from God.

BTW, the design process I described above could be, imo, very similar to a
description of the natural evolutionary process with what I would call a
kenotic active designer at work.

Steve Petermann
Received on Fri Nov 28 11:00:05 2003