News 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 .

 

[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
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

 

[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.

 

[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

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 .

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.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I have no problem with the philosophy of ID and the Theory of Evolution go make up your own minds whether Philosophy is more your bag than science, couldn't care less. It doesn't bother me that ID advocates try and abuse science to make it's position more shakey without coming up with anything scientific itself. Ironically it simply serves to strengthen sciences position because that which does not kill science makes it stronger.

The important thing is you should make your own mind up whether you want to believe in fairies or whether you want the universe to be infinite vaired and more than 6000 light years in size(creationist nonsense not ID but still) ID to me is popycock expounded by intelligent people who really should know better. If your asking us to believe in God fine, that's all part of faith to which I say don't know I'm agnostic. If your asking to discuss philosophy on a scientific basis then don't let the door hit you on the way out. It's fun to postulate but Science and philosophy are mutually exclusive: you can't have your cake and eat it.
Might as well say to them does god exist and walk away laughing

 

[phcatlantis]

The important thing is you should make your own mind up whether you want to believe in fairies or whether you want the universe to be infinite vaired and more than 6000 light years in size(creationist nonsense not ID but still) ID to me is popycock expounded by intelligent people who really should know better.

I imagine if you believe in fairies, you can believe that creation came into existence 6000 years ago with a 4 Gpc light horizon.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yes some people really will believe anything though.

 

[phcatlantis]

Yes some people really will believe anything though.

Can't argue with you there, although I can't really get all that excitement over a disagreement about what went on 6,000 years ago.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

it's not about so much what happened 6000 years ago, it's about what happened before that And people get upset because they say something like life could not exist without God, do some vague philosophical trite mongering, expound free will and then mix it with some dubious research by a fringe scientist and claim it's all true. It's like some sort of magic show, lots of bluff and bluster but if you look close enough and think about it you can see you've been tricked.

Yes there are flaws with evolution and yes they are quite cavernous but they're less cavernous than the holes in creation "theory" or ID. There simply is no intelligence in Intelligent design

Exposing a flaw with evolution does not make the whole theory wrong, any more than saying God doesn't exist makes you right?

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.

Nice concise post, I agree I still see that: the eye couldn't come into being nonsense they put about. I've seen a pictured reconstruction of reverse engineering show in evolutionary terms thank you very much. More tea Vicar?

 

[phcatlantis]

it's not about so much what happened 6000 years ago, it's about what happened before that

Exactly. The question is, why should anyone really care what secularists or creationists believe happened more than 6,000 years ago?

 

[Orefa]

The question is, why should anyone really care what secularists or creationists believe happened more than 6,000 years ago?

Assuming this is not a rhetorical question...

Everyone wants to know how things work today. But understanding the present is based on the past because the past is all we have. There is no particular limit as to how far back we should go, it depends on the field of study. Many fields of study involve ranges far beyond 6000 years.

 

[Amp1]

I agree with Orefa. 6000 yrs. is more of a bible belt tote'n Christian perspective. Some proponents of ID hold a more informed view. In my case, I don't see any discrepancy with my understanding of ID and the idea of an expanding universe or multiverse. Nor do I think there is a problem with evolution and ID. In my understanding I believe ID supports evolution(or vice versa), order in chaos is a theme I've read about in books on Chaos Theory and when I first viewed a Mandalbrot set up close.

 

[ComputerGeek]

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.

heh... good idea...

Adam: hmm.. you know eve... your boobs are sagging a bit.
Eve: well you know what... your boy's are starting to hit the water in the toilet.

God: Umm.. you guys... remember last tuesday when you ate that apple from that tree? Well recall that I told you not to eat from that tree?

Adam and Eve: uhh... no
God: Well, you were drunk that day.. the hockey game was on. anyway... since you broke my one rule, you have sinned, and that is why you are now aging and getting sick and such, now.. get out and don't let the gate hit you on your sagging old butts.

 

[ComputerGeek]

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.

yeah... like that entropy crap... WTF.. the creator could have made a universe that was a little easier to get energy out of.

 

[revelator]

No worries, it's probably only the Beta version. :D

 

[phcatlantis]

Assuming this is not a rhetorical question...

You'd be right. ;)

Everyone wants to know how things work today.

I'd say something about making sweeping generalizations, but okay.

But understanding the present is based on the past because the past is all we have.

And there's a lot of past between 6000 years ago and now. I wouldn't be surprised if there's enough past in that interval to satisfy most people's curiosity.

There is no particular limit as to how far back we should go, it depends on the field of study. Many fields of study involve ranges far beyond 6000 years.

Sure, but the question is why should anyone care about what creationists and secularists differ about insofar as it concerns things in the distant past?

 

[phcatlantis]

yeah... like that entropy crap... WTF.. the creator could have made a universe that was a little easier to get energy out of.

Could've, but doesn't mean he had to. That's what I mean; without a spec we can't determine how optimal creation really is insofar as the Christian God's plan is concerned.

 

[Orefa]

And there's a lot of past between 6000 years ago and now.

"A lot" is relative. This is still a minuscule amount of time for those who observe the movement of celestial bodies and calculate their positions billions of years ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's enough past in that interval to satisfy most people's curiosity.

True. Many people are not concerned about what happened fifty years ago. But not all.

Sure, but the question is why should anyone care about what creationists and secularists differ about insofar as it concerns things in the distant past?

I thoughts creationists didn't believe in a "distant past", only in the past from the point of creation, presumably 6000 years ago according to some. Obviously creationists would not care about what came before creation, and that's a big difference with what others believe. So isn't this an essential element of both belief systems, and reason enough to care?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I thoughts creationists didn't believe in a "distant past", only in the past from the point of creation, presumably 6000 years ago according to some. Obviously creationists would not care about what came before creation, and that's a big difference with what others believe. So isn't this an essential element of both belief systems, and reason enough to care?

Some years ago the creationists split into two factions: the young Earth creationists (YEC) believe in the traditional biblical chronology, around 6000 years since the creation. Old Earth creationists believe in geological time and processes, but deny evolution.