Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
Message from discussion An end to the "poor design" argument
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Paul J Gans  
View profile
 More options Apr 29, 9:26 pm
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:26:26 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Tues, Apr 29 2008 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: An end to the "poor design" argument

r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>Listen up, people.  Here is what really happened.
>It turns out God is merely a figurehead deity, not all that omniscient
>and put into office by covert power groups.  The real power lies with
>the ViceGod.  When the decision was made to create a universe in six
>days, including all earthly life in about three days, the ViceGod
>contracted out the job to his old buddies at Halliburton.  They, of
>course, had no ability to actually do the work but knew exactly how to
>get it done, making a handsome profit out of it.  They couldn't hire
>real "employees" because of silly workplace rules and so subcontracted
>it to a group of independent consultants.  These were all Asian, of
>course, including Indians, Chinese (plus Taiwanese) and Malaysians
>because nobody else would work for the paltry fees Halliburton was
>offering. These people, contrary to popular misconception, were
>actually exceptionally intelligent and clever and highly skilled
>workers.
>One team was assigned the "swimmeth in the waters" task.  However
>after six hours of very successful work, the boss called them in
>exclaiming, "Hey, we just also got the creepeth and crawleth bid!".
>After the appropriate grumbling about how the sales people didn't
>understand the first thing about actually getting the job done, they
>seized on the bright idea of just taking the swimmeth beasties and
>modifying them as little as possible, making full use of the gill
>supports and the paired pelvic and pectoral fins and the swim
>bladders.  Somebody in testing then called back saying there was a
>real problem with salt and water balance when you put the things on
>land instead of water.  "Oh, shit!" they exclaimed, and installed
>another osmotic regulatory system.
>The next day, while they were on a well deserved break, the boss
>called them in again.  "Change of plans -- the Big Guy is very happy
>with thingies crawling all about but now got it into His Head that He
>wants a new thingie in His own Image.  You got 24 hours to do the
>job."  Back to work, this time even more desperate.  Every kludge and
>trick was necessary.  At the last moment came the new specifications,
>"Most be capable of producing urine more concentrated than own body
>fluid".  OK, back to the drawing board.  Rig something up, stuff it in
>the body, and hope nobody notices!
>On the sixth day, they shoved what they had out the door and held
>their breath in anticipation.  It all seemed to go well and as a
>special bonus, they got the seventh day off as a paid vacation. "Hey,
>don't the people in charge realize that we pawned off a version that
>didn't even make beta test?" they gasped in amazement.  "Hell, that
>one didn't even go through alpha!  Wait until it gets challenged
>morally -- it won't get to first base in any test of faithful
>obedience to commands."  Back came the answer, "the body is likely to
>fall apart after a short time anyway, so it doesn't matter.  The only
>important thing is that we got something out that the customer bought
>and we got paid!"  God, of course, was already focused on future
>plans; a deluge, an awful lot of smiting, and the sequel: "Son of
>God".  ViceGod, as expected, didn't care in the slightest.  He got his
>kickback from Halliburton who was already named as prime contractor
>for all future projects on a no-questions cost-plus basis.
>Anyone here who actually has designed and produced a real product
>under real conditions will easily recognize this story and sympathize
>with the plight of real designers.  So much for the "poor design"
>argument.  It does not in any way rule out the "intelligent design"
>notion.

Thank you!  Exceptionally fact filled and true.

--
   --- Paul J. Gans


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2008 Google