Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Shallowness of Bad Design Arguments

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The existence of bad design, broken design, and cruelty in the world inspires some of the strongest arguments against the Intelligent Design of life and the universe. I consider the “bad design” argument the most formidable of the anti-ID arguments put forward, but in the end it is shallow and flawed. I will attempt to turn the “bad design” argument on its head in this essay.

The “bad design” arguments have at least two major themes:

1. An Intelligent Designer like God wouldn’t make designs that are capable of breaking down

2. God (as the Intelligent Designer of Life) doesn’t exist because of all the cruelty and evil in the world

To address the first point, consider the synthesis of computer languages like: Java, C, C++, Ada, Pascal, Basic, FORTRAN, COBOL, Jovial, PL1, Modula-2, LISP, Prolog, etc.

The designers of these languages admit the possibility of syntax and semantic errors in the uninterpreted/uncompiled source code presented by programmers to a computer. Is it possible in principle to implement a computer language that is both non-trivial and capable of meaning while simultaneously impervious to software developers making errors (especially semantic errors)? I’d say no. And by way of extension, can there be a meaningful design without the potential for breakdown? Every example of engineering is vulnerable to breakdown. So, the hypothesis: “An Intelligent Designer like God wouldn’t make designs that are capable of breaking down” is rooted in pure theology, not in terms of any engineering experience. The potential for breakdown is the norm for intelligent design.

Furthermore, there is a rather peculiar property about reality. It seems appreciation for what is good is made possible by the existence of what is bad. Consider the Super Bowl where over 30 National Football League teams compete for the coveted title of Super Bowl Champions (the title went to the Saints a few years back, God bless them). But would such a title have any meaning if there were no losers in the NFL? This was an intelligently designed sport. It would be a flawed argument to say “the competitions leading to the Super Bowl are not intelligently designed because they result in losing teams”, yet the same sort of illogic is used by Darwinists to argue against ID.

How can we say an Intelligently Designed world would not admit the capacity for some to be at the losing end of a Divine Drama? We may not like it, but not liking something is not a justification for rejection of truth. I’ve often speculated the evil in this world might make meaningful the good in another world. This is not far from the thoughts of one insightful thinker who said almost 2000 years ago:

“For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory”

Paul of Tarsus
2 Cor 4:17

Now to the other “bad design” argument, namely, “God (as the Intelligent Designer of Life) doesn’t exist because of all the cruelty and evil in the world”. I addressed the issue that an Intelligent Designer can make designs capable of breaking down. But on a more fundamental level, can we glibly assert there is no Intelligent Designer merely because of the existence of cruel acts? Consider Darwin’s argument:

That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create this universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to be a strong one; whereas…the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

So Darwin argues against the existence of an Intelligent God because he sees cruelty in the world. Would one argue that Darwin doesn’t exist because Darwin acted cruelly? Darwin himself said:

I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply for enjoying the sense of power;

Charles Darwin

Darwin's Puppy

Would I then argue Darwin doesn’t exist because Darwin acted cruelly? No. Yet Darwin uses the same illogic to argue the Intelligent Designer doesn’t exist. The irony of his own remarks is apparently lost on Darwin.

So even by Darwin’s own testimony, it would seem the existence or non existence of an Intelligent Agency is not determined by the existence (or lack thereof) of cruel acts or a cruel world. It may raise questions about the nature of the Intelligent Designer, but it is not, fundamentally a reason to disbelieve the existence of an Intelligent Designer like God. It may be the God that exists isn’t exactly agreeable to what we want out of God.

Finally, there is one side issue that our colleague Allen MacNeill raised and one which I felt was very well reasoned and worth addressing and one which I promised to address. Though somewhat peripheral to the issue of “bad design” it raises an interesting question. Allen wrote here: Natural Selection, Sparrows, and a Stochastic God . Allen writes:

Why does this last implication raise the hackles? Because it implies that God is a stochastic agent; He aims, but sometimes misses. A stochastic process (from the Greek stochos, meaning “a target”) is any process that includes a random component; one aims at a target, but doesn’t always hit it in the gold. In other words, a stochastic process is a probabilistic process, rather than an entirely determined one – there is a small, but irreducible probability that one will miss the target.

But consider the issue of computer languages. Without the potential for “misses” the world of computer languages would be meaningless, by way of extension, so would the biological world which is rich with computer language implementations (only some of which the IEEE and ACM are beginning to decipher)!

Can an immutable God be stochastic in His actions? Consider the axioms of math. For the systems the axioms describe, the axioms are immutable laws. But do immutable laws admit the possibility of non-deterministic results? Yes, as Godel incompleteness theorem deduced. As Chaitin put in Irreducible Complexity in Mathematics

Omega is an extreme case of total lawlessness; in effect, it shows that God plays dice in pure mathematics.

Thus, the existence of stochastic behavior does not imply something is not immutable. It only underlies the inability of finite beings to apply finitistic reasoning to infinitely complex entities. We see this in the ubiquitous existence of non-computable numbers that have no deterministic description. We don’t argue that these numbers don’t exist merely because we can’t comprehend or compute them. The same would appear true of any descriptions of the Intelligent Designer.

But questions of stochastic behavior are peripheral to the main point of this essay, namely, “bad design” arguments are flawed and shallow. Hopefully this essay shows that the “bad design” argument leads to all sorts of philosophical and logical complications and questions, not the least of which is: “Will a Perfect Intelligent Designer design something as Perfect as Himself”?

Photo Credit:
Puppy waiting for mom.

Comments
Oh Mung, Where are you? You have some unfinished business.
Mung wrote: I am not appealing to either truth or reason.
That's rather obvious. By the way, please tell our reader's why compilers generate error messages when they encounter uncompilable code or generate messages warning of some semantic errors (like uninitialized variables)? Is it because the authors of the language admit the possiblity of syntax and semantic errors by the software developers? Yet you said:
Mung: It’s completely moronic and uninformed to assert that the language “admits the possibility of syntax and semantic errors.”
The score? Mung (no computer science degree) says Sal (1 computer science degree + 3 other science degrees) is moronic and and uninformed about computer languages. Please answer the question Mung, your posts are off-target and for the most part empty.scordova
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
OK, so to recap you mean that bad design is a "strong" argument to someone who sees it as evidence against their preconceived notion of a flowers-and-sunshine, pleasure-and-comfort-all-the-time creator who would surely never allow any discomfort, pain or sorrow to enter the world. But once the person sits down and thinks through the logic for a moment, they realize that "bad design" is an utterly absurd line of argumentation. Fair enough. :) ----- BTW, I think your effort to address the issue is valuable, because there are unfortunately still a lot of folks who appear to be accurately described by my first paragraph . . . Dawkins, Ayala, Miller, Matzke (although the latter is probably just having fun; I suspect he realizes it is a terrible argument).Eric Anderson
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
By “strongest” I presume you mean “most passionate” or something along those lines.
Yes. I meant most persuassive. Ironically, the first versions of this essay used the "persuassive" wording. I think future iterations will re-incorporate it in light of your comments. Thanks. PS for me personally, the "bad design" argument almost put me in Dawkins camp many years ago. More than any other anti-ID argument, this one gave me the greatest challenges. The "bad design" argument seems reasonable to many people. I get it a lot when I give ID talks, and I know the question often come from people genuinely sympathetic to ID. I wrote the essay because the topic is important to many who are on the fence regarding ID.scordova
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
scordova: "The existence of bad design, broken design, and cruelty in the world inspires some of the strongest arguments against the Intelligent Design of life and the universe." By "strongest" I presume you mean "most passionate" or something along those lines. If you mean to say that the bad design set of arguments are the strongest in terms of substance, then you must think there are no other decent arguments at all, because the bad design line of arguments are wholly anemic in terms of their substance.Eric Anderson
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Re Darwin's 'take' on cruelty's disqualifying the existence of God, I hadn't realised how childish he was in his thinking. I'd thought it was only his less intellectually-apt followers who thought in a childish way. But when I read scordova's bald statement of point 2, I couldn't help convulsing with laughter: 'God (as the Intelligent Designer of Life) doesn’t exist because of all the cruelty and evil in the world.' What should we call it, the atheists' 'argument from animus'? Scientism and reason. What an awesome symbiosis!Axel
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Mung wrote: I am not appealing to either truth or reason.
That's rather obvious. By the way, please tell our reader's why compilers generate error messages when they encounter uncompilable code or generate messages warning of some semantic errors (like uninitialized variables)? Is it because the authors of the language admit the possiblity of syntax and semantic errors by the software developers? Yet you said:
Mung: It’s completely moronic and uninformed to assert that the language “admits the possibility of syntax and semantic errors.”
The score? Mung (no computer science degree) says Sal (1 compute science degree + 3 other science degrees) is moronic and and uninformed about computer languages. Please answer the question Mung, your posts are off-target and for the most part content-free.scordova
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Someone is acting like a loony in the exchange above. Difficult to tell who it is.timothya
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
footnotes on theodicy:
If God, Why Evil? (Norman Geisler, PhD) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtOOPaNmJFY
It is interesting to note that Theism anticipated the second law, entropy, centuries before science discovered it:
Psalm 102:25-26 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
notes on the 'top down' view of decay in the universe:
Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168488 Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design? - Granville Sewell (2nd Law) - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/looking_for_the056711.html Physicist Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Sal Cordova vs. Granville Sewell on 2nd Law Thermo - July 5, 2012 Excerpt: This is where Granville derives the potency of his argument, since a living organism certainly shows unusual permutations of the atoms, and thus has stat mech entropy that via Boltzmann, must obey the 2nd law. If life violates this, then it must not be lawfully possible for evolution to happen (without an input of work or information.) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-rob-sheldon-offers-some-thoughts-on-sal-cordova-vs-granville-sewell-on-2nd-law-thermo/
Thus, despite John Avise's theological concerns that God would not allow such decay to happen to his creations (I believe blasphemous was the word he used) after he created them, the fact is that finding decay in created things, in this 'fallen' universe, after God's creative acts brought those things into being, are, in fact, foundational presuppositions to mainstream Theological reasoning!bornagain77
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
I thought it was quite amusing the way 'the argument from evil' (the argument from 'bad design') played out with John Avise's book "Inside the Human Genome"
Evolution Professor: Special-Creation “Effectively Eliminated” - Cornelius Hunter - June 2012 Excerpt: In his book Inside the Human Genome evolution professor and National Academy of Science member John Avise continues with the usual evolutionary religious claims that the evil and inefficiency of biological designs—at the molecular level in this case—necessitate evolution, for such designs would never have been designed or created by a loving higher intelligence. As usual, it’s all about religion. In his chapter on non intelligent design, Avise points out that the world is deeply flawed right down to the fundamental, molecular level, and he repeats his religious belief that ascribing such a world to a Creator God is tantamount to blasphemy:
If, on the other hand, natural causation is denied, and a caring Intelligent Designer is to be held directly responsible for life’s imperfect features, then the theodicy challenge remains poignant. How could a Creator God have engineered such a deeply flawed biological world, right down to its most elemental molecular features? Unless we pretend that biological defects do not exist, we seem forced to conclude that any Intelligent Designer is either technically fallible, morally challenged, or both. Furthermore, if the intelligent designer is deemed to be the Abrahamic God (rather than a Martian, for example), then are we not guilty of blasphemy in ascribing to Him a direct hand in sponsoring the molecular genomic flaws that plague human health? [156]
,,, Dr. Hunter comments in another post on Avise's theological concerns,,,"There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. It is a powerful argument for evolution, but its power comes from religion, not science. And that is the story of evolution. From the pre Darwin Enlightenment years to today, these metaphysical arguments have mandated an evolutionary narrative. But the science reveals monumental problems. What Darwin and the evolutionists have done is to manipulate the science to fit our religious requirements. Theology is, and always has been, the queen of the sciences." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/evolution-professor-special-creation.html
Does it even enter John Avise's mind that the scientific evidence, that he himself cites, is absolutely SCIENTIFICALLY crushing for Darwinism? For example in his book we also find:
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.hgmd.org/
This is simply incredible. A scientific fact of a overwhelmingly deleterious mutation rate, a overwhelming rate that is crushing to Darwinian thought is, in the mind of a Darwinist, turned into positive evidence for Darwinism because of 'theological concerns'??? It is simply 'Alice in Wonderland science' for this type of reasoning to even be given serious consideration as a scientific argument! But to be more specific as to the insurmountable 'scientific' problem this overwhelmingly negative mutation rate presents for neo-Darwinism,,,
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. - Dr. John Sanford (quote taken from 'Down, Not Up' video lecture)
i.e. This ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 60 to 175, per generation is far greater than what even evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate, since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them from any given genome:
Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm Human evolution or extinction - discussion on acceptable mutation rate per generation (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video https://vimeo.com/35088933 Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
Perhaps John Avise, and other neo-Darwinists, who rail against what God should and shouldn't do with allowing genetic entropy to be the prevailing principle governing all biological adaptations, should instead concern themselves primarily with the fact that this 'science' empirically crushes their Darwinian presupposition before they plunge full depth into deep Theological arguments on Theodicy that they are, as biologists, ill equipped to handle?
The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/ Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
Further note:
Kimura's Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162
A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution', and the insurmountable problem it presents for neo-Darwinism, is shown in the following video:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
bornagain77
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
As to a atheist arguing against God because of the existence of evil in the world, this has always struck me as quite a peculiar thing. Theists, and Christians in particular, because of Christ's triumph over sin and death, have never, ever, denied the existence of evil in the world. We, as Christian Theists, have always maintained that we live in a fallen world that is not perfect. Moreover, if someone is to make a argument from evil against God, then that person making the argument from evil is forced to presuppose, as a starting position, that the person he is trying to convince of his argument from evil can recognize the objective reality of evil in the world. But for evil to be considered objectively real requires the objective reality of perfect goodness, i.e. the objective reality of a perfectly good God, since evil is merely a departure from the good way things ought to be. Thus, the atheist is forced to presuppose the existence of a perfectly good God in order to make his argument from evil:
Does God Exist - Albert Einstein and his answer to his Professor ! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLOZDpE1rkA
i.e. It is a self defeating argument!bornagain77
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
Need anyone add that Mung's own internal compiler missed an error when he wrote: "What’s you’re point Salvador?" Think he meant "your"?mugwump3
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
This is the first time I remember seeing "disemvoweling" on UD. Is this tactic common to those of our persuasion? It's a bit creepy.Chance Ratcliff
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Is there anyone here who thinks that Salvador did not change the content of my posts?
What? And admit they believe the bad syntax and bad design in your posts is evidence of my intelligent design? That would be kind of humorous wouldn't you say since that was my claim in the OP that bad design can't be used as evidence against intelligent design. PS By the way, you were warned about your drivel before you posted more of it. Your subsequent posts were fair game after that.scordova
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
Dear Mung, A compiler gives error messages if the syntax in the source code presented to it is in error. Tell the readers, how it is that such error messages can exist in the first place if the designers of the compiler didn't admit the possibility of such errors. Oh, you'll have a tough one with that because that would mean that the construction of the compiler admits the possiblity of syntax errors existing in the source code, which means the language admits the possibility that syntax errors can exist in source code. Oh, I see your mistake, you thought I was talking about compilable code, not source code in general. Too bad for you, since even Netbeans admits the possibility of such source code existing: Uncompilable Source Code Exception which means the designers of the language admit the possibility of syntax errors in the source code. OOOOPS. In light of that, your whole original argument makes about as much sense as your disemvoweled posts.scordova
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
Is there anyone here who thinks that Salvador did not change the content of my posts? ABUSE OF POWER! REPENT!Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
Repent, Salvador.Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
Salvador:
Oh wait, you’re the same guy who conflates compilers with languages. No wonder you’re so confused.
And you're a liar.Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
Sal, you can ask me to forgive you, and as a Christian, I just may do so. But that does not change the fact that you should repent.Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
you have neither the right not the moral authority to do so.
But your mangled posts are bad design and bad syntax so they can't be the product of an intelligent designer with intent to humiliate you (in terms of Darwinist logic that is). Oh wait, weren't you the one that had issues about the possibility of bad syntax being consistent with intelligent design? If we were to follow your illogic, it would imply your mangled posts were not the product of an intelligent designer.scordova
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
Hey Mung, There was some bad syntax in your disemvoweled post, are you saying the English language precludes the existence of bad syntax. Oh wait, you're the same guy who conflates compilers with languages. No wonder you're so confused. Now that you don't have a compiler to process your attempts at the English language, the error of your conflations is painfully evident isn't? I wrote:
Each of these languages admits the possibility of syntax and semantic errors.
The English language presumes the possibility that there can be bad syntax, such as that evidenced in your disemvoweld post. Now back to my question, are you asserting the bad syntax in the bad design of your disemvoweled post is evidence of intelligent design on someone's part?scordova
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
I'm asserting that you have no shame. Thank you for helping prove that God's laws are irrelevant when it comes to "supporters" of ID.Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Mung, There was some bad design and syntax in that disemvoweled post. Are you asserting that the bad design is evidence of intelligent design? If so, thank you for helping prove an important point.scordova
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
When it comes to you, Salvador, I am not appealing to either truth or reason. You're a despot. Smile all you like.Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
In response to:
Slvdr: cmplr s nt th sm s lngg, n fct cmplr cn nl prctcll mplmnt smll frctn f ll pssbl lngstc cnstrcts f lngg (snc n prncpl th nmbr f cnstrcts s cncptll nfnt). Ths f blv cmplr s th sm s lngg, ’r th n vdncng cncptl rrrs! f r gng t bn nn fr rctng strwmn, pls bn rslf. ddn’t vn mntn cmpltn n r P.
Mung asks:
You support that, johnnyb?
Are you asking, Mung, about the intelligent design evidenced in the bad design of a disemvoweled post, and hence proving that bad design is no argument against intelligent design? scordova
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
What’s you’re point Salvador?
That the possibility of bad syntax (such as evidenced in your disemvoweled post) is a consequence of the universe that makes languages possible (be they human or computer languages). If the universe of character or symbol streams did not admit the possibility of syntactically flawed constructs, languages would not be possible even in principle. Ergo, the possibility of intelligent design cannot exist without also the possibility or even actuality of bad design. To say otherwise would be like saying the English language is not intelligently designed because the character streams from which it selects valid constructions also allows the possibility of bad syntax (like that in your disemvoweled post). The fact that most teams seeking to win the superbowl will have losses does not imply the game of football is not designed. That death and sickness exist in the universe is not evidence against the design of the universe. Further, bad design could be in the eye of the beholder such as those here: The Reason for Imperfect Self Destructing Designs - Passover and Easter Thoughtsscordova
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply