Too Busy for a Real Post, so Free Fire Zone

Things are really hopping around here in the Curmudgeon’s secret underground headquarters, so we won’t be able to whip up a real post today.

Therefore, we’re declaring another Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You think Biden’s doing a great job? Tell us about it. You think he’s the most catastrophically incompetent boob to ever become President? Tell us about that.

Use the comments for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

12 responses to “Too Busy for a Real Post, so Free Fire Zone

  1. Puck Mendelssohn

    Bill Dembski has a new book out, co-authored with Casey Luskin! I was supposed to receive my copy yesterday but I suspect that DI commandos must have intercepted the Amazon delivery truck to prevent my early access. It’ll get here at some point.

    By the way, I recall that on the old SCTV show Guy Caballero once said that it was impossible for people not to laugh when the name “Billy Barty” was mentioned. Is Casey Luskin the new Billy Barty?

  2. Seriously, is there something which can explain the concept of “design”? Are there principles which most people would say that a design should follow?

  3. Dave Luckett

    “Design” is normally thought of as the effect and result of a conscious and intelligent mind making choices to arrange the most appropriate materials, components and subsystems available to best accomplish a stated purpose, which purpose is separate from the simple existence of the product, and in effect is always a compromise among several desirable qualities.

    To infer design, it is therefore necessary to demonstrate at least three characteristics, namely, an intelligent mind, open selection, and stated purpose. In the case of living things, none of those characteristics is demonstrated.

  4. Not necessary for creationists. Universe: Zero percent probable. God: 100% probable. Therefore 100% probability God designed universe lol.

  5. @Dave Luckett
    Thank you.
    Is there some reference, or argument supporting those thoughts about design?
    What interest me are
    1. Prior parts or materials
    2, Solving a problem
    I don’t understand how those apply to creation from nothing by an agent beyond the laws of nature.

  6. Dave Luckett

    TomS: Just so. It is impossible too apply that description to an agent that creates from nothing, and is not constrained by the laws of nature. Where omnipotence operates, there is no need for design. Design is a process that is used in an attempt to overcome a problem using limited means, within the constraints imposed by the material facts.

    A theologian might object that by using the term “intelligent designer” of God (which is of course what the DI are doing, despite their rather transparent subterfuge) the user is actually limiting the Almighty, which is a contradiction in terms. Also a heresy, but that need not detain us here.

  7. It’s worth noting that both Young Earth creationism and thus intelligent design only exist because in effect, if they aren’t true, then conservative Christians are bad people. God tells them that they’re good people, therefore they must be true. YEC and intelligent design aren’t the conclusive truth, they’re just the “evidence” used to support the purported truth.

  8. Is there a good resource which tells us what a design is like? The advocates of “Intelligent Design” seem to be.content with telling us that such-and-such is designed, without any thought being given as to what design means.
    Are there professionals in design who will tell us about design? Someone who is recognised as an expert and is not involved with ID or the analogy of the clock?

  9. My son’s a graphic designer – if you’d like, I can see what books he recommends. From talking to him, the attributes of “design” differ based on the thing being designed, so I suspect that there’s no one conclusive list. Which, again, is exactly the point. It doesn’t exist to be provable or empirical, and doing so would actually make it less useful.

  10. @Jim Roberts
    Thank you. I’d like to see what a designer has to say about design.

  11. I mean, that’s just observational science right there – no argument against it. All hail the Cosmic Aardvark.