Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

Here is an example of a dog's coat that was obviously designed by a higher power. Is this an example of Intelligent Design or Silly Design?

Absolutely. I'm enjoying reading his writings. I think its a shame that hooah is being such a disrespectful jerk toward them. He's hurting the quality of this discussion board and tarnishing us as a community.Stick around Genomicus, we're not all assholes.

---

Now I get to add "hypocrite" to Theo's list of qualities Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

The problem is that displaying the properties of rational design doesn't lead us to any conclusion. Things that aren't designed can look designed. Things that are designed can look like they weren't."Looking desinged" doesn't help us in distingiushing design. Poor design is *not* evidence against the telic hypothese: it could have been a Poor Designer after all.What poor design is evidence against is an intelligent powerful and benevolent God. Creationists typically get into that part while these neo-IDists seem to be seperating themselves from it. Although, we still have that "intelligent" qualifier and some of the 'designs' we see are quite silly and suggest that the presumed designer maybe wasn't all that intelligent afterall.Make sense?

But if it doesn't help in distinguishing design, then it isn't a clue.Well, I guess it depends on what your goals are... If you just want to feel better about your suspicions, and don't care about logic, then I guess what you say is true.But then, too, the native americans had a lot of clues that their rain dances worked, right? Designed by the process outlined in the Theory of Evolution, sure. Nobody thinks it was randomly assembled. But we still don't have anything about it being purposefully designed. I don't think so. Rational designers can make poor designs, even on purpose.