Thursday 21 March 2013

Design Critics

The problem with design critics, is they usually don't have any qualifications in design, or have never designed something themselves. I myself have some experience of rudimentary design, I have designed toy parts, such as simple wheel axles and various wooden toys.

There are THREE MAIN ISSUES with evolutionists that play down design that need addressing.

1. Induction. (Non Sequiturs) Evolutionists jump to conclusions based on a lack of information. This is easy to do, anyone can do it, whether you are evolutionist or creationist or neither inclined.

2. The double standard. (Ignoring the science of Biomimetics for example.)

3. Inability to understand design, (pretending they are wiser, by playing the hypothetical designer)

I will now fully explain issues 1, 2 and 3.

With induction, the mistake is to jump to conclusions about designs because they SEEM to us to be either inefficient, or of a poor standard, but usually because of the inherent IDEAS within designs, that are only known to the designer then it can be easy to miss things. I saw an old fashioned pickle fork shaped seemingly incorrectly, one of the blades of the fork was fatter than the others, it looked clumsy and it looked like a designer-error so I myself jumped to that conclusion because the reason for the thicker blade was obscure. Obscure or hidden data can influence our conclusions. In fact the fork was meant to be that way, I later found out.

2, the double standard. Evolutionists accept biomimetics as a field of science and would likely say that the designs in nature are marvelously brilliant and genius - after all, this field involves taking supreme designs from nature and using them to use in our own technology, because they are better than the solutions that human designers can come up with. So evolutionists will praise the design-standard in nature ONLY IF they can give that praise to evolution, BUT - if it is supposed that a Master Designer is responsible for the designs, then the evolutionist will quickly go back to trying to say that the standard of design in nature is poor. But Biomimicry PROVES deductively, that the design standard in nature is incredibly high through the process of Reductio ad Absurdum in obedience to the modus tollens rule, as shown in the following syllogism;

- IF design was of a poor standard in nature, it could not be used in our technology.
- It is used in our technology, 
- ERGO design in nature is not of a poor standard. 

3. The final problem with the way the evolutionist thinks is the most remarkable one. They actually tell you what the designer should have done pertaining to a particular design they deem to be a poor design. This particular tactic is known logically as a vacuous truth, or a vacuous statement.

A vacuous truth is an argument that has very little value because it depends on something which is either false, or can never be true. So for example here is a vacuous argument;

"If I were superman, I would fly to the moon."

Now this statement is certainly true - I would in fact fly to the moon if I was superman, but it is of very little meaning because I will never be superman.

In the same way, no matter how clever evolutionist scientists may seem, they are not capable of designing a human being in the first place, so they can't tell us what would be a better design of human because they haven't managed to make a better design that is not plagiarized from the original one. (i.e. Nobody has designed a human being, no person can or would, because it would be a miracle because a human being is so far beyond our design-ability that it is impossible, so an evolutionist is not qualified to even comment on what makes a human work.)

If evolutionists COULD design a human which they can't, then unlike God they would design the body differently, for their own reasons based on ignorance, a lack of data and the assumptions that their own biases have some kind of truth in reality. In reality, the designs in place are there because they are the best design-solutions in a viable context pertaining to all of the complex problems of anatomy and biology. So the most important thing I can tell you, as a rudimentary and basic designer of some experience, is that you should remember that all the organisms on this planet have been and are, as designs, viable, regardless of what the evolutionists say. That there are obscure reasons for particular designs being morphologically and apparently inefficient does not mean they are designed poorly in the least, it just means evolutionists are arrogant to presume they know better when they cannot as of yet even create one simple lifeform.

No comments: