Re: Who's Burden of Proof?

Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>
Thus, the term good designer is one that comes from a high pedestal and
implies that someone can over look the entire field of possible solutions
and choose the best of all of them.
<<<<<<<

From my experience as a designer and having worked with many designers, this
would not be my definition of a good designer. A good designer is one who
accomplishes the goal of the design within the constraints given. Good
designers will use all possible means to meet their goals, but they
constantly must deal with constraints, i.e. money, environment, time,
ignorance, politics, etc. Designers never have the luxury to <over look the
entire field of possible solutions>. Just as your program may not be
perfect, if it works( produces more barrels ) the designers did a good job.

>>>>>>>>>>
> Indeed, the problem I am thinking of has more possible outcomes than
contained in the human genome. Yet via random design and comparison (which
mimics random mutation and selection) we can design a very useful solution
to our problem.
<<<<<<<<<<

Your suggestion of "random" mutation is a metaphysical leap that would have
to be defended. This is a key point. If the real philosophic/scientific
question of intelligent or non-intelligent design comes down to inference to
the best explanation then what is the basis for the idea that mutations are
random or unintelligent? How would that be defended?

Clearly mutation and selection in biology does create designs. Is this
associated with an ongoing intelligent design process? From my prior posts,
the best inference from our own experience would say yes.

Steve Petermann

.
Received on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:33:11 -0600