Quote:
Quote by: Jack  No, it's really not. Why does the iPod sell better than the Zune? Because of who designed it. The talents and objectives of the designer are integral to their designs. If you were going to buy a painting of clowns, would it matter to your decision if one were painted by Red Skelton and the other Wayne Gacy? |
No, the identity of the designer wouldn't matter. What matters is what is on the canvas, and how the machine is designed. Knowing the designer doesn't impact the facts in the field one bit.
Quote:
The identity of the designer imparts just as much information about the design as the design does about the designer.
|
The theory of ID doesn't refer to any designer, so this is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
If there is intelligent design, the identity of the designing agent is vitally important to the concept.
|
It's not important at all. For instance, when we find paintings on the wall in some cave, it's not vitally important to know the identity of the person that did the paintings. Similarly, when we find arrowheads or other artifacts, it's not vitally important that we know the name of the person that constructed them.
Quote:
|
The only reason to avoid any consideration of the identity of the designer is the discomfort with discussing the obvious implications of that consideration.
|
The only reason to insist on consideration of the identity of the designer is the discomfort with discussing the theory of ID as stated on its actual merits.
Quote:
|
Every proposed process requires consideration of the mechanism that causes that process.
|
No, it doesn't One doesn't have to consider "what generated gravity" in order to research the effects of gravity on other phenomena.