Re: What *is* design?
- From: John Burton <jrhoburton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:44:24 -0600
John Wilkins wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
>
>>"John Wilkins" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:dhq5jr$2j8t$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone have a good summary of what design actually is? Even (or
>>>particularly) if it is defined by Dembski or one of the IDevotees?
>>>
>>
>>No. But I am not above googling, cutting, and pasting.
>
>
> Nor I:
>
> Shakespeare on Intelligent Design
>
> Design -
>
> The ample proposition that hope makes
> In all designs begun on earth below
> Fails in the promised largeness...
> Troilus and Cressida, 1.3
>
> Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie,
> Which we ascribe to heaven: the fated sky
> Gives us free scope, only doth backward pull
> Our slow designs when we ourselves are dull.
> All's well that ends well, 1.1
>
> His givings-out were of an infinite distance
> From his true-meant design.
> Measure for measure 1.4
>
> Thine, in the dearest design of industry
> Love's Labours Lost 4.1
>
> I cannot help it now,
> Unless, by using means, I lame the foot
> Of our design.
> Coriolanus 4.7
>
> ... thou, my brother, my competitor
> In top of all design...
> Antony and Cleopatra 5.1
>
> O, where hath our intelligence been drunk?
> Where hath it slept?
> King John 4.2
>
> Intelligence -
>
> Let me the knowledge of my fault bear with me:
> If with myself I hold intelligence
> As You Like It 1.3
>
> How! dare not! do not. Do you know, and dare not?
> Be intelligent to me: 'tis thereabouts;
> For, to yourself, what you do know, you must.
> And cannot say, you dare not.
> The Winter's Tale 1.2
>
> ObTO -
>
> Our posts shall be swift and intelligent
> betwixt us.
> King Lear 3.7
>
> :-)
>
More shameless copy-paste design stuff...
"...what is meant by *design*? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to
and end. But the necessity for contrivance--the need of employing
means--is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have
recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The
very idea of means implies that means have an efficacy which the direct
action of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are not
means but an encumbrance. ...if the employment of contrivance is in
itself a sign of limited power, how much more so is the careful and
skillful choice of contrivances: Can any wisdom be shown in the
selection of means when the means have no efficacy but what is given
them by the will of him who employs them, and when his will could have
bestowed the same efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and contrivance
are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a
being whom no difficulties exist."
[John Stuart Mill, "Theism"]
006:096 At the crack of dawn, He causes the morning to emerge. He made
the night still, and He rendered the sun and the moon to serve as
calculation devices. Such is the *design* of the Almighty, the Omniscient.
[Quran (Khalifa)]
"God has infinite wisdom, goodness and power; he created the universe;
his duration is eternal, a parte ante and a parte post. His presence is
as extensive as space. What is space? An infinite spherical vacuum. He
created this speck of dirt and the human species for his glory; and with
deliberate *design* of making nine-tenths of our species miserable for
ever for his glory. This is the doctrine of Christian theologians, in
general, ten to one. Now, my friend, can prophecies or miracles convince
you or me that infinite benevolence, wisdom, and power, created, and
preserves for a time innumerable millions, to make them miserable
forever, for his own glory? Wretch! What is his glory? Is he ambitious?
Does he want promotion? Is he vain, tickled with adulation, exulting and
triumphing in his power and the sweetness of his vengeance? Pardon me,
my Maker, for these awful questions. My answer to them is always ready.
_I believe no such things_. My adoration of the author of the universe
is too profound and too sincere. The love of God and his
creation-delight, joy, triumph, exultation in my own existance- though
but an atom, a molecule organique in the universe- are my religion".
[John Adams, in a latter to Jefferson, Sept. 14, 1813, from
"Christianity and the Constitution: The Founding faith of our Fathers"
John Eidsmoe ISBN: 0-8010-3444-2]
"The woman who is truly Spirit-filled will want to be totally submissive
to her husband...This is a truly liberated woman. Submission is God's
*design* for women."
[Beverly LaHaye, "The Spririt-Controlled Woman"]
John
>
>>>I am not looking for rules of thumb about how to *do* good design. I am
>>>interested in the properties of things that are designed. I recently
>>>posted a
>>>short list of those properties by they are mor eor less intutively
>>>derived. I
>>>want to know how design is characterised when objects are planned and
>>>made.
>>>
>>
>>Definitions of design on the Web:
>>
>
> ...
> None of which tell me what I want to know - the *properties* that designed
> things, and only designed things, have. I am beginning to suspect such
> properties are non-existent.
>
.
- References:
- Re: What *is* design?
- From: Steven J.
- Re: What *is* design?
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: What *is* design?
- Prev by Date: Re: What *is* design?
- Next by Date: Re: What *is* design?
- Previous by thread: Re: What *is* design?
- Next by thread: Re: What *is* design?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
