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

Yeah - but you gotta be glad to see someone that can actually write coherently, no?I find Genomicus a refreshing change after the likes of Dawn Bertot.Anyway - back to the discussion...
As you were.

No, it is not.
Poor design is not evidence against a rational designer, it is only evidence against an infallible designer.e.g. Ford Pinto:

quote:

---

The Pinto had a very dangerous design flaw, which made the car prone to explode during rear-end collisions. The Pinto didn’t have a proper rear bumper and there were also no reinforcement’s around the gas tank so it was vulnerable to puncture which caused explosion on impact. The doors were also poorly designed and were susceptible to jamming after accidents. Many lawsuits were filed because of the safety issues of the Pinto, and then Ford came under heavy fire when a company memo showed that Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off all of the lawsuits from Pinto related deaths than to pay for a vehicle redesign.

---

And when looking at a car with an unreinforced petrol tank at the back, no doubt that would speak against a rational designer because any rational designer would have designed the car differently, no?

Correct.
The Pinto was poorly designed (it blew up people!) - but it was also rationally designed.
And that is why poor design is not contra-indicative of a rational designer.{abe}
"That is true to an extent." and "Not necessarily." are indicative of a missing parameter.
But you have not yet provided the characteristic that would change the "sometimes" into an "always".If "Poor design is not evidence against a rational designer" is only "true to an extent", then please define this extent.
And if "an unreinforced petrol tank at the back" would "Not necessarily" be designed by a rational designer then please explain how you would know either way.Currently, it seems to me that you are arguing that if a thing is poorly designed then is was not designed by a rational designer.
But that assumes that a rational designer cannot make mistakes nor have his design constricted by external factors.e.g.
If I was to design an eye, I can assure you that it would be:
a) poorly designed and
b) designed by a rational designer.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : clarified my {abe}

If a particular brand of creationism claims perfect design, then yes - the lack of perfect design is an argument against it.
If a particular brand of creationism claimed that the planet was created and seeded with simple life forms which then evolved and changed of the millenia, then no - the lack of perfect design is not an argument against it.
Flawed design does not include nor exclude a designer without knowing more about the designer's capabilities, intentions and past actions.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.