Apologies for the delay.
DT:
> > The means chosen to achieve an end is of great interest in human
> > society! Engineers have made a whole discipline out of it.
SC:
> But the "proof is in the pudding". The goal of any designer is the end
> product not the method to achieve that end. Likewise, Scripture seems to
> focus more on the Creation (i.e., the end product) rather than on the
> process of fabrication.
Modern views of design recognise that intelligent design takes into
account many more things than the design concept. Fabrication
processes are important to consider at an early stage - because they
affect design decisions. Whilst I am willing to make a
cognitive separation of the design concept from the fabrication
process, it is not good design to proceed without reference to
downstream activities.
A designer composes the text: "methinks it is like a weasel".
The next step is to display the phrase on a computer screen. The
means may be:
(a) to write a computer program which randomly throws up letters into
predetermined spaces/slots. If they match the target, they are
retained; if they do not match, the program iterates. Eventually,
there is a perfect match.
(b) to write the phrase into a memory location of the computer and
then call it up to display on screen.
I will describe (a) as an example of poor and inefficient
programming, and one which is not worthy of an intelligent designer.
Do I need to add that neither of these are acceptable analogues to
Darwininism, because according to Darwinism there is no "target".
DT:
> >The tools chosen to
> >fabricate must relate in some way to these attributes of God.
SC:
> I argue that it is the end result that best relates to the attributes of
> God. I think your focus on the process rather than the product misses the
> mark.
One reason why companies struggle to be world class is that their
design processes are functionally separate from their fabrication
processes. I am not wanting to focus on "process" - just to say that
"process" and "concept" have to be considered together.
DT:
> >The key word to address IMO is PURPOSE. The eye and the ear have
> >purposes: the eye is designed to see and the ear to hear. This is
> >the meaning of Proverbs 20:12. Some alleged fabrication processes
> >(e.g. Darwinian evolution) contradict this principle.
SC:
> How?
Sorry, I thought this point had been made many times before and did
not need repeating. The reason Darwinian evolution contradicts the
principle is that the determining factors are survival and
reproductive success. Insofar as vision and hearing promote survival
and reproductive success, favourable variations are selected and are
absorbed into the gene pool. Darwinism recognises no other purposes.
A Christian will not be happy with this: eyes are made for
seeing whether or not there is reproductive success; ears are made
for hearing whether or not this aids survival.
DT:
> > - the reason I question this is
> >that the fabrication process is an essential element of turning a
> >design concept into an artefact. The tools used do matter when
> >addressing issues of purpose, meaning and the character of the
> >designer/craftsman.
SC:
> If you can build a pyramid by carrying every stone by hand (a blunt
> instrument) or using current construction technology (an elegant
> instrument), the end result is the same and reveals the same purpose. In
> this case, the tools used to achieve this end are less important in
> understanding the purpose, meaning and character of the designer.
The key word here is "If". Yes, there will be cases where blunt
instruments and sophisticated instruments can deliver the same
result. There will be numerous other cases where this is not the
case. I still think it inevitable that the designer will make
production-related decisions and has an interest in the fabrication
process. Take the pyramid example: if the designer specifies stone
blocks that are too heavy to lift and move upwards, the pyramid will
never be built. The size of the assembly blocks have to be within
the capabilities of the work force.
DT:
> >The complementary principle will not
> >help us out of the problem because of the issue of purpose and
> >design. Can a statement about undirected evolutionary change be
> >complementary to a statement about God's craftsmanship?
>
> I think that it is risky to assume that evolution is undirected, in either
> a metaphysical or mechanistic sense.
It is fundamental to Darwinism that there is no direction. All
attempts to introduce direction (people have tried for 140 years!)
have been firmly resisted and have never been accepted in the
academic world.
> In fact, I would argue that even in
> the mechanistic sense, evolution does have direction--this is implied in
> the principle of natural selection. Whether this direction is divinely
> inspired may not be know with certainty, nevertheless, it is not
> inconceivable that a designer would have a hand in this step.
So, this comes back to my original question: where is design
evident in Darwinism? Is it in mutations? Is it in natural
selection? You are now giving me the answer that the hand of the
designer should be apparent in natural selection. If you are willing
to go with this, then I'll follow up this post with another to
address the problems of this position.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.