If Intelligent Design is exactly that, what's with all the design flaws?

[revelator]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1136069409330
Here's an article from The Toronto Star that I quite enjoyed. The gist of it being that if these bodies are the best that God could do... then it doesn't say much for the all knowing and all powerful nature of God :rofl: .

 

[wasteofo2]

I'm particularly annoyed at the design of testicles. What, may I ask, would've been so difficult about designing sperm so that they could withstand 98.6 degress, and allowing for men to have testicles not be just hanging there, waiting to cause inordinate amounts of pain to their owners?

Also, as a 6'3" guy, I would've appreciated the foresight to have my body designed so that my ligaments and tendons would NOT have grown slower than my bones when I was a young teen.

 

[arildno]

In contrast to Stephen Jay Gould, I hold that male nipples is, in fact, a very good design detail.

 

[Pengwuino]

Same old childish rhetoric if I do say so myself.

There is a third possibility that comes to mind. ID could stand for Incomplete Design. What if the Designer is just beta-testing us to identify the bugs before rolling out Homo sapiens 2.0? Sure, we have lives that are nasty, brutish and short, but the designer doesn't really care and we have to muddle through so He can come up with something better for the next roll-out. And we're powerless to complain, because the Designer has a monopoly. I call this the "God as Microsoft" option.

But that was the funniest thing I've heard all ye...the last 365 days.

I also agree, what's this crap with testicles? I say this is PROOF God exists... except he's a sadist... I don't see why evolution would result in every nerve being bundled up into one small easily kickable area that delivers such amazing pain that it turns even the greatest of men into crying babies. It's a joke, God did it so he can occasionally laugh his ass off at us. We're all pawns in his little joke of a universe. Somewhere out there, there is another universe, the REAL universe, where such horrible biological blind spots don't exist and where people don't date their own mothers and the Darwin Awards are not necessary.

 

[arildno]

There isn't supposed to be any crap about testicles.
On their own, they're quite handy.

 

[fargoth]

a perfect world would be a dull place.
this world is as funny as hell
and it really does seem that someone manipulated it so itd be that funny :tongue2:
i think id open a thread about the bloopers in history (and present day)

 

[Entropy]

Here's an article from The Toronto Star that I quite enjoyed. The gist of it being that if these bodies are the best that God could do... then it doesn't say much for the all knowing and all powerful nature of God.

Well actually, according to Bible, man was perfect in the garden of eden. He didn't age, have disease, and was in perfect health. But after Adam and Eve sinned they lost their perfect and ergo passed down imperfection to their offspring. As a result modern man gets sick and eventually dies. So pointing out "mistakes" in human design isn't going to smash ID seeing how "mistakes" can be called a result of man's inherited inperfection from original sin.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well actually, according to Bible, man was perfect in the garden of eden. He didn't age, have disease, and was in perfect health. But after Adam and Eve sinned they lost their perfect and ergo passed down imperfection to their offspring. As a result modern man gets sick and eventually dies. So pointing out "mistakes" in human design isn't going to smash ID seeing how "mistakes" can be called a result of man's inherited inperfection from original sin.

Stop trying to mix religion and science! *beats entropy over the head with a fish*

 

[Evo]

Well actually, according to Bible, man was perfect in the garden of eden. He didn't age, have disease, and was in perfect health. But after Adam and Eve sinned they lost their perfect and ergo passed down imperfection to their offspring. As a result modern man gets sick and eventually dies. So pointing out "mistakes" in human design isn't going to smash ID seeing how "mistakes" can be called a result of man's inherited inperfection from original sin.

The "design" didn't change, humans have always been flawed. When God realized that Adam & Eve would eventually notice that they were starting to age, God made up a reason to explain it by saying they sinned and "kicking" them out before they caught on.

 

[Burnsys]

Well actually, according to Bible, man was perfect in the garden of eden. He didn't age, have disease, and was in perfect health. But after Adam and Eve sinned they lost their perfect and ergo passed down imperfection to their offspring. As a result modern man gets sick and eventually dies. So pointing out "mistakes" in human design isn't going to smash ID seeing how "mistakes" can be called a result of man's inherited inperfection from original sin.

But that is what your religion says... my religion With The Flying spaghetti monster as God created the humans just as they are today with his Noodly Appendage.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well actually, according to Bible, man was perfect in the garden of eden. He didn't age, have disease, and was in perfect health. But after Adam and Eve sinned they lost their perfect and ergo passed down imperfection to their offspring. As a result modern man gets sick and eventually dies. So pointing out "mistakes" in human design isn't going to smash ID seeing how "mistakes" can be called a result of man's inherited inperfection from original sin.

This assumes that ID has the theological arguments from the bible story available to it. But it doesn't; ID is an attempt to (pretend to) attack evolution on scientific grounds, by asserting that some things animals have are too unique to have evolved to they must have been designed. And the IDers are very careful not to say in public that the designer was god.

So if the ID people were caught using St. Paul's theory of original sin as you did, that would be embarrassing to them.

 

[revelator]

The "design" didn't change, humans have always been flawed. When God realized that Adam & Eve would eventually notice that they were starting to age, God made up a reason to explain it by saying they sinned and "kicking" them out before they caught on.

Damn.. that almighty is a sneaky one :rofl:

 

[Mk]

So pointing out "mistakes" in human design isn't going to smash ID seeing how "mistakes" can be called a result of man's inherited inperfection from original sin.

I would have forgave man by now. Jesus I'm better than God.

Wait wait wait... all this because one guy ate a ****in APPLE!

 

[revelator]

Well, it wasn't just any old apple. It was the apple from the tree, that they were explicitly forbidden to eat from.

Perhaps God shouldn't have given humans a curious and rebellious nature, if it was so important that Adam and Eve don't eat the damn apple. He really should've been able to foresee that...

 

[Amp1]

Just maybe the design was a pattern that would evolve over time from uni-cellular to multi-cellular through a selection that is natural until the creature emerged from the water and stood erect and became self-aware as it developed the ability to reason. :tongue2: :tongue:

 

[Entropy]

You guys don't understand my point. My point was that creationists aren't going to be detered by this artical because they have theology that explains human inperfection.

 

[Entropy]

Stop trying to mix religion and science! *beats entropy over the head with a fish*

This artical went there before I did.

 

[Entropy]

Perhaps God shouldn't have given humans a curious and rebellious nature, if it was so important that Adam and Eve don't eat the damn apple. He really should've been able to foresee that...

He didn't, Satan did. God just gave man freewill.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, it wasn't just any old apple. It was the apple from the tree, that they were explicitly forbidden to eat from.

Actually, it wasn't an apple at all. It was fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The Bible never says apple.


The apple is a recent popularization, probably through the repeated imagery used to depict the Eden scene (Gould has something to say about the "artist's impression" effect on ancient life too).

 

[revelator]

You guys don't understand my point. My point was that creationists aren't going to be detered by this artical because they have theology that explains human inperfection.

I don't think the article is meant to deter the IDers, just to treat ID with the seriousness it deserves :rofl:

Actually, it wasn't an apple at all. It was fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The Bible never says apple.
The apple is a recent popularization, probably through the repeated imagery used to depict the Eden scene (Gould has something to say about the "artist's impression" effect on ancient life too).

Hmm, learn something new all the time. Thanks for the clearup!

 

[Amp1]

Perhaps God shouldn't have given humans a curious and rebellious nature, if it was so important that Adam and Eve don't eat the damn apple. He really should've been able to foresee that...

He didn't, Satan did. God just gave man freewill.

Actually, God would have known. And would be aware of all the consequences and possibilites including but not limited to the rise of 'Atheisim'. The point is God allows freewill to run its course.

 

[fourier jr]

The gist of it being that if these bodies are the best that God could do... then it doesn't say much for the all knowing and all powerful nature of God :rofl: .

that reminds me of a list of a bunch of questions that porphyry, a pagan polemicist, asked as the christians were taking over rome, at around ad300. one of them said "why would an, all-knowing, all-powerful god choose such an inefficient & haphazard method of propagating the faith?"

 

[Amp1]

If any of you are interested in viewing a detailed account of ID and the plan of action you could find this fascinating ---> http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper58.html and this --> http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper36.html There is also skeptiscism here: http://skepdic.com/urantia.html

 

[matthyaouw]

This doesn't disprove intelligent design. It may well have been God's will that we suffer greatly and then die.

 

[phcatlantis]

If we're going to talk about design flaws, shouldn't we have some sort of specification to determine what is or isn't a flaw? I'm not aware of any Christian denomination that claims creation is presently perfect, yet what denomination also claims that such imperfection deviates from God's plan?

 

[Amp1]

Great point, Phcatlantis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If we're going to talk about design flaws, shouldn't we have some sort of specification to determine what is or isn't a flaw? I'm not aware of any Christian denomination that claims creation is presently perfect, yet what denomination also claims that such imperfection deviates from God's plan?

Well, it's silly to argue that if creation is imperfect, then God must be imperfect. Because theologians in the past have insisted God is perfect, and many of the religious blindly accept that, it leaves the door open for silly articles pointing out imperfections. But if one throws out the "perfect" requirement and looks at the achievements of creation, it's truly awesome; any consciousness capable of producing it would be awesome too. So what if it isn't perfect?

 

[phcatlantis]

Well, it's silly to argue that if creation is imperfect, then God must be imperfect.

Never argued that. I'm arguing that without the relevant specification, it's silly to claim a design flaw. God's perfection has nothing to do with it, the question is what he specified creation to be and how it deviates from that plan. If his plan called for a world exactly as imperfect as it is, then where's the design flaw?

 

[Evo]

Never argued that. I'm arguing that without the relevant specification, it's silly to claim a design flaw. God's perfection has nothing to do with it, the question is what he specified creation to be and how it deviates from that plan. If his plan called for a world exactly as imperfect as it is, then where's the design flaw?

Actually this thread is about Intelligent Design, therefore, "God" isn't part of the discussion. Intelligent Design pushers are the ones claiming that something so perfect and complex as humans had to have had an "intelligent designer", hence the joke.

 

[Moonbear]

You guys don't understand my point. My point was that creationists aren't going to be detered by this artical because they have theology that explains human inperfection.

In terms of creationism and the beliefs involved with it, that's true, it won't deter the believers. However, the wool they think they're pulling over everyone's eyes is to claim ID is not creationism and is not based on the Bible, so they can't use Biblical claims to explain away such inconsistencies. No matter how you slice it, it's still religion. If the people who believed it were honest about that, we'd leave them alone to practice their religion in their churches. The reason it's such an issue is they are trying to push it on those who do not follow their religion by lying about what it is they are promoting. I'm sure they'll find some way to justify lying too.

 

[phcatlantis]

Actually this thread is about Intelligent Design, therefore, "God" isn't part of the discussion. Intelligent Design pushers are the ones claiming that something so perfect and complex as humans had to have had an "intelligent designer", hence the joke.

ID proponents are amazed by the complexity of creation period, but I've yet to meet one that claims that creation is a model of perfection. Perhaps the OP is attributing views to people that don't hold them. Either way, the point stands. The design criticism is meaningless absent some evident spec. You have no relevant blueprint to hold creation against and say "this didn't come out right."

 

[Evo]

ID proponents are amazed by the complexity of creation period, but I've yet to meet one that claims that creation is a model of perfection. Perhaps the OP is attributing views to people that don't hold them. Either way, the point stands. The design criticism is meaningless absent some evident spec. You have no relevant blueprint to hold creation against and say "this didn't come out right."

Precisely why the ID argument is ridiculous, there are so many better ways that humans, animals, nature in general could have been created that would prevent all of the problems faced every day that is is ludicrous to state that something this flawed was anything more than random chance.

 

[phcatlantis]

Precisely why the ID argument is ridiculous, there are so many better ways that humans, animals, nature in general could have been created that would prevent all of the problems faced every day that is is ludicrous to state that something this flawed was anything more than random chance.

Unless, of course, those "flaws" were anticipated and work to further the designer's ultimate objective. That takes us to the problem of evil and beyond the intended scope of this forum. My point is that without knowing the designer's plans, we have no means of determine what is the intended optimal configuration of creation; ID incredulity is resilient to such attacks and for good reason. I think we'd both agree that pointing out the obvious failures of imagination underlying the ID complexity argument stand on more solid ground rationally, although to tie this into Politics and World Events, ID increduilty is clearly persuasive in the United States.

 

[Evo]

Unless, of course, those "flaws" were anticipated and work to further the designer's ultimate objective. That takes us to the problem of evil and beyond the intended scope of this forum. My point is that the design criticism is not an effective one of ID, and critics are better off defending against the incredulity ID proponents express regarding creation's complexity.

There isn't "complexity" the way they describe it either. Reverse engineering of anything will always show you which steps were necessary to obtain the end result you are observing. It doesn't mean that the end result you're looking at was the "first" & "only" attempt. Again, ID is an empty, baseless bunch of hand waving meant to confuse the simple minded.

 

[phcatlantis]

There isn't "complexity" the way they describe it either.

If you mean proven irreducible complexity, then we agree.

Again, ID is an empty, baseless bunch of hand waving meant to confuse the simple minded.

I'm not at all interested in heaping derision on either camp, but yes...it is a powerfully persuasive argument in the public sphere that presents challengers to secular education policy advocates.