I am going to punch the first person I hear say 'design thinking' here at work.

"and trying out multiple prototypes before you choose a solution."

Karl Popper would have liked that.

Poor OJ roaming the internet for Designer/Darwinist etc.
Speaking of Designers as in plastic surgeons here's a design that works for me and here's one that doesn't

h:

I just read my e-mail--the stories come to me. as the Darwin meme breaks down they're just easy to spot.

As they say, to a man with a hammer, all problems look like nails.

The fact that management is more aware of the importance of design in business and that there's a new catchphrase for it has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin.

Next up: OJ decides to hang a nice picture on a wall, brightening up the room and refuting Darwin at the same time!

Attempts to design the economy or society have not worked very well.

Joseph:

Opposite. Attempts to ghave an economy without a design--the legal system--have never worked.

Papaya:

nothing actually has anything to do with Darwinism, that's the point.

Of interest here though is the imagery you resort to, with the implication that Darwin--your God--is being crucified.

Ach, give me a break. Darwin is not "my God" and the imagery isn't about crucifiction, it's about how people with a metaphorical tool tend to apply it to situations where it doesn't apply. You're convinced that Darwin is some sort of evil boogyman, and so you "see" evidence of his incorrectness everywhere.

Your subconscious is leaking....

oj - The legal system of the past wasn't designed. It grew up out of resistance to kings, and was derived from Biblical law. Now that legal principles are being designed by lawyers, the legal system doesn't work any more.

PapayaSF, Evolution is used in the main stream culture all the time. It is part of the tempo of the age. Of course OJ is going to respond to that. Instead of objecting, why don't you let us know when a metaphorical tool of "Stuff just happens, and you can't plan for it" would ever be useful in Science, or the world at large.

The SEC, the SBLI, partnership law, corporation law... The "free" market is thoroughly designed.

Robert, evolutionary thinking is not accurately summarized as "Stuff just happens, and you can't plan for it." Of course stuff can be planned or designed, the argument is over whether everything is designed in the minutest detail.

Some, (like OJ as far as I can tell), seem to think of God as a micromanager: if humans have an appendix, then God must have put it there, end of discussion. At the other end you have folks like Richard Dawkins, who see the evidence of evolution as proof of atheism. I see both extremities as forced and unlikely. The first requires a mischievous or incompetent God, and avoids the more likely-seeming (and free-will-allowing) scenario of a God who set some some rules and parameters and stepped back to let things develop. The second seems like hubris: a human using imperfect knowledge of life on one planet to disprove the idea of a God? You don't have to be a believer to smile at that error.

I'm in the middle: that natural selection has occurred seems obvious to me, but whether it's the whole story is an open question, and it neither proves nor disproves any major theological issue.

Papaya:

Congratulations, you're a Creationist.

PapayaSF, thanks for responding. First, in what way is Evolutionary thinking not "Stuff just happens, and you can't plan for it." ? Now we come to the meat of it. It has taken some time for you to admit that you don't blindly follow the "Science" of evolution. I don't belive that OJ or I belive that God is a micromanager. We are not pushing for a theory, we are pushing againest the theory of evolution, as taught in schools and presented to the public. Most of us would be content with "I don't know". You seem sometimes to be willfully ignorant of the religion evolution is for some people. I keep hearing how important Evolution is to Biology, but no one can tell me how(except for the adapting diseases, of course. The fact we knew that before Darwin is always ignored). Evolution is( as strict Science) "Stuff just happens, and you can't plan for it." Why is it so important to teach that in schools? Thanks for your time sir.

It has taken some time for you to admit that you don't blindly follow the "Science" of evolution.

I don't blindly follow anything, and I try to write carefully enough that no one gets that impression. I don't fit OJ's Darwinist straw man, no, but most people who know something about evolution don't either.

I don't believe that OJ or I believe that God is a micromanager.

So why do humans have an appendix? Either it's a relic of evolution or God wanted us, for mysterious micromanaging reasons, to have one. I can think of no other possible explanations.

We are not pushing for a theory, we are pushing againest the theory of evolution, as taught in schools and presented to the public.

I'm with Dobzhansky: nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. If you want to overturn that, you need to (1) find physical evidence that shows an undeniable flaw in the theory, and (ideally) (2) come up with a new theory that explains both what evolutionary theory explained as well as your new evidence. Anti-Darwinists haven't done #1, and for #2 all they can offer is theology. That's why you are doomed to fail, barring the fall of the Republic to a religious dictatorship or something.

You seem sometimes to be willfully ignorant of the religion evolution is for some people.

Lots of people have lots of different religious beliefs, and some of the time they take it to extremes. But I don't judge Christianity by Fred Phelps or Eric Rudolph, so I don't think it's fair to judge evolution by Dawkins or whoever.

I keep hearing how important Evolution is to Biology, but no one can tell me how

Well, it's complicated and I've got to run, but it come down to the Dobzhansky point: the similarities and differences of current life on Earth, the fossil and geologic records, DNA, etc. all make it look like life (as a whole) changed and evolved over time. That's why I refer to the capricious God theory: if evolution did not occur, He sure went out of his way to make it look like it did!

That's one reason I dislike the Darwin-bashing around here. He didn't sit down one day and decide to create a theory to challenge religious belief, he (and others at the time and since) were just trying to make sense of the physical evidence. Because evolution makes sense of the evidence, it's taught in schools.

May I recommend one book that's not even about evolution per se? Laws of the Game: How the Principles of Nature Govern Chance by Eigen and Winkler. It's a good explanation how the combination of simple rules plus chance can produce amazing complexity, and thus answers the ID charge that complexity can only come about via design. (One can argue the simple rules came from God, but that's another issue.)

Papaya:

To the contrary, your chosen text, of course, illustrates the case for Intelligent Design. The Intelligence establishes the rules.

Don't fret though, no one is a Darwinist when push comes to shove.