Re: Design of Faces

Brian D Harper (
Sat, 11 Apr 1998 23:35:18 -0400

At 08:01 PM 4/10/98 -0400, Jim Bell wrote:

>Message text written by Glenn Morton
>> Behe defines design as
>"The purposeful arrangement of parts." Fine, but how do I determine your
>"purpose"???? Determination of purpose is a subjective, inferential
>Funny, but I think it's pretty evident you have a purpose, Glenn. You were
>designed to confuse. And you do it well. ;-)
>Seriously, confuse purpose with intent. Bad move. That's not
>how the word is used by Behe and IDers. They are talking about
>functionality. You want to switch this to a metaphysical inquiry.

This is rather remarkable. I can understand that one might have
teleology without intentionality (Aristotle, for example), but
it seems to me that an intelligent designer carries with it
intentionality. How do you get around this?

Bill Dembski's archer analogy for specified complexity comes
to mind. Is it possible to present such an analogy without
the intent of the archer to hit the target being an important

I will also point out the conclusions from those attending
the NTSE conference. Bob Koons has a summary at:

One of the "shared conclusions" of those attending was:

===begin quote=====
3.If theistic science or intelligent design theory is to
become a progressive research program, it must do more than
poke holes in the evidence for Darwinism: it must acquire
auxiliary hypotheses about the intentions and preferences of
the designer from which we can generate specific, testable
predictions and informative explanations.
======end quote=====

make me shudder. Does anyone really dare to make
hypotheses about the intentions and preferences of
the Lord God, YAHWEH?

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University

"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal