>> Loren's idea did not meet an essential feature of my challenge -- that is,
>> that life be designed for survival.
Walter is apparently saying that his challenge requires constructing a
living organism, *all* of whose features aided survival: that is, it is not
enough to construct a living organism which had many, many features which aided
survival, and *one* feature (the "signature") which did not aid survival, but
which identified the organism as the product of design. This was not clear from
the original wording of the challenge, which was:
>> You are to design life for survival, and to look like the product of one
>> designer. Here comes the hard part:
>> Can you design the system to resist all naturalistic (or
>> evolutionary) explanations? . . . .
IOW, Walter did not specifically request that his two criteria had to be
fulfilled by the *same* features. If I said "You are to design a computer
program which can do word processing, and which will resist unauthorized
copying," one would naturally assume that a program which devoted some of the
code to word-processing functions, and some of the code to copy-protection
functions, would fulfill that instruction. It wouldn't be at all obvious that I
was demanding that the copy-protection code should *also* serve the
word-processing function.
Nor is it clear why an evolutionist would have to meet the terms of the
revised or clarified challenge: i.e., construct a living organism which is
unmistakably non-naturalistic in origin, *all* of whose features aided survival.
Walter's argument seems to be that, otherwise, the evolutionist is being allowed
to hold to a double standard:
>> First they claimed that "imperfect" but highly functional design was
evidence
>> against a designer. Now they claim the designer should have used worthless,
>> non-functional designs that do nothing for survival.
But this seems to be a manufacturing of inconsistency where none really exists.
Suppose one detective insists that the latest jewel theft is the work of
the Catwoman. The second detective says "That seems very unlikely, because the
Catwoman is very subtle at her craft. This thief just broke the window and
snatched the jewel, setting off the alarm and risking detection."
1ST DET.: "But didn't breaking the window serve the function of giving
the thief access to the jewel?"
2ND DET.: "Yes, but a more skillful thief -- which we assume the Catwoman
to be -- could have picked the lock and disabled the alarm."
1ST DET.: "What would convince you that it *was* the Catwoman? Can you
design a scenario which lets her get away with the jewel, while at the same time
making it clear that the theft could only be her work, and nobody else's?"
2ND DET.: "I suppose if we got a package containing one of the stolen
jewels and a signed note from the Catwoman, I would be pretty certain it was
her."
1ST DET.: "First you claim that unsubtle but highly functional method was
evidence against Catwoman's involvement. Now you claim Catwoman should have
used a completely unsubtle, blatant, crude method which did nothing to advance
the theft!"
Who is being unreasonable here, the first detective or the second? Pretty
clearly, the first. As the second detective might say:
"I was not implying that *all* the thief's actions, in *all* contexts and
for *all* purposes, must be subtle and crafty, or else the thief could not be
the Catwoman: only that, if the commission of *the theft itself* was crude, that
would point away from the Catwoman. Obviously, if the Catwoman is engaged in
another activity, one in which subtlety would be quite pointless and even
counterproductive -- like taunting the police by taking credit for the crime
after the fact -- she can be as unsubtle as she pleases."
Similarly, the evolutionist is not implying that *all* the designer's
actions must improve the organism's chance of survival, or else the organism was
not designed: only that, if the *mechanisms 'aimed' at survival themselves* show
design flaws, that would point away from a perfect designer. If the designer
were engaged in another activity -- like leaving incontrovertible evidence that
he was responsible for the organism -- his design could be as non-functional as
he pleased.
Jeff