Permit me one brief sanity diversion with an excerpt from the book, The Honey Bee, by James L. Gould and Carol Grant Gould. Though it is written from an evolutionary perspective, the authors frequently cannot help but use the language of design in attempting to describe the phenonenon. Certainly the honeycomb is a fascinating structure. But I still don't see where you are adequately supporting the design conclusion. If a resource is as biologically expensive to produce as beeswax and honey, does it not follow that the most successful colonies would be the ones to make most efficient use of said resource?
I don't see believe you are suggesting that the bees themselves designed the honeycomb. They are merely reproducing a pattern within an available space. Unless you are saying that the bees are designed, and therefore the comb is designed. Unfortunately, that method of classification requires that one must first identify the creator of an object in order to arrive at the design conclusion.
I think PatrickHenry summed it up when he asked (paraphrased), "Can naturally occuring artifacts give the appearance designed?" On the flip side, can an intelligent agent create an artifact that is not designed? And just to throw a third monkeywrench into the works, what would you say of the following two paintings? Are either of them designed? Would it surprise you to learn that the creator of one of them is not human? Can you tell which one?
Abstract oil painting
Abstract watercolor painting
On a personal note, best wishes to you and your family. Get some sleep.
First, and foremost I thank you for the personal note. That means a lot to me. Although it might seem trivial to some, I really do take tremendous comfort in the encouragement of my FRiends here. Thank you so much for your encouraging words.
But I still don't see where you are adequately supporting the design conclusion. If a resource is as biologically expensive to produce as beeswax and honey, does it not follow that the most successful colonies would be the ones to make most efficient use of said resource?
Perhaps I have not adequately supported it. It just seems interesting to me that very distinguished experts on bees, writing from an evolutionary perspective, cannot help but lapse into the language of design when describing the architecture of bees. Of course I agree with you that it does make sense that the most successful colonies would be the ones to make most efficient use of certain resources, but I don't see how that truism necessarily mitigates either for or against a design inference.
Unless you are saying that the bees are designed, and therefore the comb is designed. Unfortunately, that method of classification requires that one must first identify the creator of an object in order to arrive at the design conclusion.
Most respectfully, not so. For example, detective Columbo illustates very well a process of historical science wherein he invariably (otherwise there would be no tv show) discovers that a death is not accidental, but the result of design, even though he does not yet know the identity of the murderer.
With regard to the paintings, I think they both are example of design, in part because algorithims are probabilty amplifiers, not attenuators. One painting is simply the direct result of design, the other is an indirect reult of design, much like bees or floppy disks. The fascinating question is whether or not there is a criterion that can help tell the difference.
btw Patrick, when I was a kid my older sisters, much like Iraqi officals, would often reply to a question of mine they thought impertinent with; "NONE OF YOUR BEESWAX!"