- What does optimal design look like? What would the perfect standard look like which with which we would juxtapose \”bad\” or suboptimal design?

- How would optimal design (whatever this looks like) affect predator/prey relationships and thus extinction due to overpowering prey, etc…? How would the overall ecosystem be affected?

- Any Engineer will tell you that in complex systems there are always constraints implemented which allow other parts of the system to function better for the overall good of the entire system. There is no such thing as a system where every aspect is \”optimal\” by all standards.

- How do we know things are now as they originally were? Are we correct in assuming that the decay and presumed suboptimality we observe is how things were designed from the start?

For the sake of argument, if we assume for a moment that the designer is the Biblical God, then a theological criticism requires a theological response and the Bible makes provision for suboptimal design in the doctrine of \”The Fall\”. A doctrine which states the entire creation fell into decay because of man\’s rebellion. Nothing was left untainted. A spiritual entropy which permeates all of creation.

In general, in the design of anything, desired characteristics of the outcome come first. But in the case of biologic life forms, I’m not so sure, since according to one point of view, life developed stepwise.

If Henry Ford had lived (much) longer, there’s a good chance that he’d be working in the auto industry today, in a high position, and possibly instrumental in what the current products are like. But since the technology developed stepwise, he would likely have significantly differing ideas of what to create (design + manufacture) today, as opposed to his earlier ideas.

You know where I’m going with this analogy, and yes, old Henry is not omniscient or omnipotent. If he were, it could be argued that he knew all along what he wanted.

But can we really use that analogy to understand the Creator (designer + maker)? It’s purely conjectural and may be totally off base, or it may have some parallels. Today in manufacturing, we often enter parameters into a computer, and it does the designing. The microprocessor is a prime example. Although we set the parameters, the program determines the actual layout of the millions of transistors, inductors, resistors and multi layered tracings (equivalent to wiring). In like fashion, our creator could use evolutionary tools to aid in the process. Where today we have almost completely automated assembly lines (in some cases totally automated), the embryo handles assembly in a similar way (at least in principle).

I don’t feel that that viewpoint is heretical. Our creator may still be omnipotent, but also smart enough to use tools (same as we do), to streamline the process.

As far as the universe, and all physical matter goes …

Thus, the creator who created the medium would also be choosing his “axioms”, again, wittingly or not … if a contradiction occurred in physical systems, it would cause for a complete breakdown of the system.

Our creator may not have created the universe, but be a product of it. Either way, the cosmos and everything in it appears to be designed, and I’m happy to be a part of it.

In response to your earlier comments and the one just posted, it does make a difference which type of creator we are envisioning (which I agree with you, is not really the aim of ID in its current state). However, there can still be no operations inside of a system if it’s “axioms” are not earlier defined. The possibility that, as you said “The observed behavior dictates the axioms” may appear true on the surface, but isn’t actually the case.

Returning to mathematics for the metaphor, imagine you are standing at a perfectly flat blackboard and draw every conceivable form of triangle, and everytime you draw a new one you measure the angles and get a total sum of 180 degrees. Then you would be tempted to say that this implies that given any line and any point not on the line, then there is a unique line through the point which is parallel to the given line (which is the axiom which cause triangles to have angle sum of 180). However, the reason that you could not draw any conceivable triangle with angle sum not equal to 180 is because this axiom was already in place. If not for the axioms there would be no system. They are arbitrary choices that we make, even if we don’t realize that we are making them. By choosing to draw triangles on a flat board we are choosing, wittingly or not, to use the set of axioms which define Euclidean geometry.

Thus, the creator who created the medium would also be choosing his “axioms”, again, wittingly or not. These are the things which consist of or lead to such properties as the laws of thermodynamics or Farraday’s constant, &tc. The thing is, if these aren’t set from some initial “axioms” then their could be contradiction in the system, which I would posit, if a contradiction occurred in physical systems, it would cause for a complete breakdown of the system.

In the end, the big question is “Where did this story all begin?” This is where we have to look, but will likely never find (at least in this life). Because until we determine where the initial conditions came from, then we can have no clue as to how any subsequent systems developed.

RM+NS works at some level. Beyond that level, intervention is inferred in the formation of a new or functionally improved or altered genome.

This action could be the result of a purposeful creative act, a ‘let’s see’ approach, or possible other motives. Depending on that, it could be causation by an omnipotent designer, or by some other intervening agent.

I’m afraid that leaves the question unanswered.

The difficulty with asking why omnipotence could not have created a universe without given constraints is that any existing system must have constraints, relative to other possible systems.

On a planet with gravity, water runs downhill. One might – I suppose – create a universe without gravity, BUT then other constraints must be addressed.

Claims about limitations of the designer are irrelevant.

By the very nature of the case, any actual design requires choosing for one option and against a variety of others. That means choosing to work within a given set of constraints in the chosen system.

As a result, identifying the constraints of a system do not necessarily demonstrate either that it was not designed or that it was poorly designed.