Apathia, were you able to learn something from the analogy? Did you come to understand evolution better?-- It sounds to me like you did... like you thought the analogy was bad... but then you began to understand how it matched and how it is the opposite of the creationist strawman (tornado in a junkyard building an airplane) that it was meant to address.
I've looked at the Analogy from a number of differnt angles in the process of my posting about it. I still see a lot of value in it for promoting an evolutionary way of seeing. I'm not a science professional. I had such ambitions my first couple of years in college, but in the end the only Calculus I was able to pass was Renal Calculus, and I moved over into the Humanities were I belonged. So, I look at anaolgies the way a literature professor does.
They alter perception, the way we see things.
It's fascinating to see that as in Biological Evolution, Humans and their culture (Tech Culture, Social Culture, Religious Culture, Scientific Culture)
Have evolved together in integration, as opposed to a metaphysical intelligence outside the Human process messing with who we are.
"What has God wrought?" No. How are we transforming ourselves? The cultures and objects of culture we make are no more seperate from who we are as a species than the species of spiders who are identified as such by their webs.
What we call "intelligence" in Human activity isn't a stand off seperate executive mad scientist. It's all more subtler and isn't merely located in our brains but is a process that takes place in our environment and community as well. There is an ecology of mind. But it's our ecology. There is no zoo keeper, no ecological planner.
Nature is self-ordering, self-transforming, self-transcending, especially in the context of life and even more in the context of sentiant life. The ID proponents see what evolution is capable of, but they want to outsource it all to a Supream Tinkerer. That's where the OP Analolgy can come to play.
Look at how technology has evolved along with integral to Human activity. This is our doing. This is our transformation. There's no God that acts as a consultant for the Boeing Corperation or decalred that man should make wings for himself. We are on the verge of even taking over our biological evolution. It's a scary thougt. And I confess that I happily won't live long enough to see the creation of a new Human species. But the point is, look at us. We are evolving, our tools, and with them ourselves, without the intervention of the Tinkerer. We are great evidence that nature is self-transforming and evolutionary.
So, unlike Mijo, I don't find the Anaolgy useless and invalid.
Also, my background as an Engish teacher is aware that an analogy or parable is as good as its audience. If its lost on them, you move onto a different one. Depending on how Southwind's Analogy is presented, it could lead to the target audience just scratching their heads in puzzlement.
They may be confusing "intelligence" with a metaphysical mind or cosmic tinkerer. And when you tell them that that kind of intelligence isn't present in human cultural evolution, they then accuse you of denying any kind of inteligence is at play. So enter the unfortunate confusion that has plagued thie thread. It's not that Mijopaalmc and Jimbob are ID proponents, but they have read the Analolgy in just the way the one would. And so have criticised it from there. Unfortunately many of the replies to their criticism didn't really get the angle they were coming from and were worded in a fashion that reinforced their idea that the analogy was about denying the role of commom garden variety intellect in technological development. (I wrote some of that kind of thing myself to see how it would be taken, especially if there would be some qualification.)
Seeing were they are coming from, I agree with them that the analogy would fall flat for most Creationists. Obviously a Creationist isn't coming from an evolutionary paradigm. They need some education in the concrete process first, before they can benifit from the analogy. It speaks so well to us in the choir. It takes us to interesting places, because we're able to get on board. And that because we already somewhat understand its process orientation, since we have seen how the biological evolution process works. We can accept the "Headless Watchmaker," because we know the process of the "Blind Watchmaker."
So, this is why I cry out, "Show us the process!"
Now I know that you can take Southwind's Analogy to the classroom, and there will be people who will get it right away. There are some who won't, and there are many (I have taught from junior high to college level) who will just write the words you say in their notebooks so they can produce just those words for the exam, while they have no comprehension whatsoever. For the many, in private all my fellow teachers have said it's hopeless. But for those who balk at it, I'd prescribe the process and a good dose of Dawkins.
There's hope for those who balk.
Every analogy and most any statement of significance needs qualification and
is contextual to the target audience.
Speaking now as a skeptic, there's another pont to be made about analogies. Using one as the basis of an argument or reasoning from one is a road to nowhere, except if you are hoping to score a point in a debate where the win doesn't go to fact but to presentation.
Again, I'm not saying Southwind's Analogy is invalid. I'm still one of its supporters. I've just agknowledged its natural limitations. Thank you, Southwind17 for a stimulus of perspective.
And thank you Jimbob and Mijopaalmc for demonstrating where many, especially ID proponents, would be confused.
The analogy has a wider effectiveness if it's backed up by the empirical process of evolution.
What I've found silly in this thread is the treament of an analolgy as if it were the scientific substance, and as if it were supposed to work under all circumstances or not work at all.
So my rant that has evolved into a way too long diatribe.
