Intelligent design not so intelligent... why?

[nobspeople]

Intelligent design doesn't mean, literally, perfect design. But that idea flies out the window (and lands in a steaming pile) when one says the ID was done by a being that's all knowing and all capable (even though the bible may not use those terms, specifically, the idea is there based on the words used).

One would expect said ID to then be flawless, if this was the being's intent.
But any ID we see around us, isn't perfect. Some would say that's 'man's fault' due to original sin. That's an excuse, in all honestly: how can imperfect being thwart (damage, harm, etc) a perfect being's plan?!? It's not possible.

Unless... the perfect being wanted it to be able to be thwarted by these imperfect beings.

Examples of ID not so 'I':
The human eye - plenty of eyes on the planet are better than human eyes: from raptors to squid to shrimp
The human throat - what 'I' creator would make the throat to contain the air AND food passage so close together that can cause choking? Not so 'I' it seems
Testicles - one theory says that animals that jump a lot have external testicles to protect those cells from abdominal pressure, while animals that don't need this protection have internal testicles - why not have all internal testicles? Same question when it comes to 'heat tolerance'.
The fact that evolution has come up with a method to have a body good enough to not cause death before reproduction, too much of the time, versus being created by an infallible creator (aka God).

Some are changing the INTELLIGENT Design to UNDESIRABLE Design, but still shows the makings of ID, which is yet another excuse to justify a POV.

Why do you think ID isn't very 'I'?
Or, why do you think ID is very 'I'?

[Tcg]

Only breathing through the nose would be problematic when one has a serious cold and both nasal passages are stopped up. Speaking through the nose would be very limiting. Our detailed speech is the result of both the vocal chords and the tongue.

Remember this isn't an adaptation to our present physical configuration, but a whole new setup. Perhaps chronic rhinitis and post-nasal drip would never arise, and maybe our speech would be entirely different; whistles, squeaks, and snorts perhaps?

In any case, what I have pointed out presents real challenges far a two separate passageways design. If this is the design you are recommending, then you'll need to create one in which the passageway used for breathing can't get stopped up. If you don't do this, no one would live long enough to develop chronic rhinitis.


Tcg

[Miles]

Only breathing through the nose would be problematic when one has a serious cold and both nasal passages are stopped up. Speaking through the nose would be very limiting. Our detailed speech is the result of both the vocal chords and the tongue.

Remember this isn't an adaptation to our present physical configuration, but a whole new setup. Perhaps chronic rhinitis and post-nasal drip would never arise, and maybe our speech would be entirely different; whistles, squeaks, and snorts perhaps?

In any case, what I have pointed out presents real challenges far a two separate passageways design. If this is the design you are recommending,

Not recommending at all, simply suggesting as a reasonable possibility.

then you'll need to create one in which the passageway used for breathing can't get stopped up. If you don't do this, no one would live long enough to develop chronic rhinitis.

If such an inflammation would even occur. In any case, it's why I suggested to 1213 that "perhaps there would be a "lint-and-other-crap trap" at the entrance of the nose."

Thing is, I'm not trying to design an operable system, only the stating that one is possible. After all, whales appear to have such an apparatus using an epiglottis (see diagram)








.

[Overcomer]

Everything God created was good except when it came to man and that creation was VERY good. This information is found in the first chapter of Genesis. However, when Adam and Eve sinned, evil entered the world and the entire creation was cursed. This is why things are not perfect here on earth. See the third chapter of Genesis.

As for Intelligent Design, I say this:

The discovery of DNA and genetic information has transformed the controversy over how life began by debunking the naturalistic claim that the detailed messages found in the molecules could arise spontaneously by chance or because of the laws of physics and chemistry. Instead, it points to an intelligent agent formulating these codes for a specific purpose.

Information theory states that nature exhibits two types of order: that produced by nature and that not produced by natural processes known to experience. Looking at the three possible explanations for the organized messages in DNA – chance, law, and design – we can determine the viability of each using Scrabble tiles. If we simply toss them all on the table, they will not randomly spell out Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Only an intelligent agent could use them to produce a play. Therefore, chance cannot account for the complex codes in our DNA.

Using those same Scrabble tiles, we can place them in a row to spell out the word ‘Scrabble’ according to a law which says that each ‘s’ will be followed by a ‘c’ which will be followed by the letter ‘r’, etc., over and over again in a repeatable pattern. But our DNA follows no such repetitious arrangement.

That leaves us with design as the only reasonable explanation which is simply illustrated with an analogy to books. We know that the words in a book do not arise from the page itself or from the ink that is used. An intelligent agent has to be behind the writing. By the same token, we know that the messages in our DNA do not arise from the material of the DNA itself. They indicate that a thinking being wrote them there. In fact, a written message is always the product of an intelligent agent.

Put another way, using an analogy with computers, the DNA is the hardware while the codes it contains are the software – and it takes an intelligent agent to produce that software. The bottom line is this: The order in DNA is not produced by nature or by any natural process known to us.

Given the logic of this, why do some scientists refuse to accept the idea of intelligent design? The answer rests in their refusal to abandon the philosophical stance of naturalism which does not allow for explanations outside its narrow parameters, especially when those answers involve God. In fact, these scientists have redefined science in purely naturalistic terms, purposely excluding intelligent design, labeling it as pseudoscience – even though real science is at the heart of the intelligent design argument for the origin of life. In truth, those who dismiss intelligent design have chosen philosophy over scientific fact.

[bluegreenearth]

Everything God created was good except when it came to man and that creation was VERY good. This information is found in the first chapter of Genesis. However, when Adam and Eve sinned, evil entered the world and the entire creation was cursed. This is why things are not perfect here on earth. See the third chapter of Genesis.

So, the talking serpent and its action of encouraging Eve to sin must have been good since evil only entered the world after she and Adam sinned. That makes perfect theological sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[brunumb]

Given the logic of this, why do some scientists refuse to accept the idea of intelligent design? The answer rests in their refusal to abandon the philosophical stance of naturalism which does not allow for explanations outside its narrow parameters, especially when those answers involve God.

No. It is because the example and logic used is a false representation of the mechanism by which DNA works and how it may have arisen.

[Diagoras]

The order in DNA is not produced by nature or by any natural process known to us.

"Genes consist of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA contains the code, or blueprint, used to synthesize a protein. Genes vary in size, depending on the sizes of the proteins for which they code. Each DNA molecule is a long double helix that resembles a spiral staircase containing millions of steps. The steps of the staircase consist of pairs of four types of molecules called bases (nucleotides). In each step, the base adenine (A) is paired with the base thymine (T), or the base guanine (G) is paired with the base cytosine (C)."

From this link.

The order in DNA is determined by well-studied and understood chemical processes. You appear very keen to apply logic in your argument, but are arguing from a position of ignorance.

If the order in DNA was such a mystery, we simply wouldn't have the preponderance of medical advances such as CRISPR.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
If such an inflammation would even occur. In any case, it's why I suggested to 1213 that "perhaps there would be a "lint-and-other-crap trap" at the entrance of the nose."

Thing is, I'm not trying to design an operable system, only the stating that one is possible. After all, whales appear to have such an apparatus using an epiglottis (see diagram)

As I mentioned previously, while elegant, that design is not foolproof. Notice in the diagram, a slip of the epiglottis risks food going into the trachea.

Evolution is about "good enough", so we should expect to always be able to critique any biological system, or combination of systems. That by no means should discourage us in being proud about it.

[nobspeople]

...
If such an inflammation would even occur. In any case, it's why I suggested to 1213 that "perhaps there would be a "lint-and-other-crap trap" at the entrance of the nose."

Thing is, I'm not trying to design an operable system, only the stating that one is possible. After all, whales appear to have such an apparatus using an epiglottis (see diagram)

As I mentioned previously, while elegant, that design is not foolproof. Notice in the diagram, a slip of the epiglottis risks food going into the trachea.

Evolution is about "good enough", so we should expect to always be able to critique any biological system, or combination of systems. That by no means should discourage us in being proud about it.

I don't know why, but it still amazes me at how some Christians will criticize evolution, but not hold their god to the same standards, ignoring all its 'not-so-intelligent-design'.
I suppose it's easier to make an excuse than face facts.

[JoeyKnothead]

Let's go on and point out my amateir status on all things cept dooficity...

I don't know why, but it still amazes me at how some Christians will criticize evolution, but not hold their god to the same standards, ignoring all its 'not-so-intelligent-design'.
I suppose it's easier to make an excuse than face facts.

I think it's down to the nature of god belief, and associated psychology. The god concept is there, I contend, to help folks get past issues or questions that might be so troubling the critter itself risks inability to function.

"Why are we here? What happens when I die?"

These are questions for which no ready, confirmable answers are available. They risk "locking" the questioner in a sort of endless loop of thought, akin to "earworms" (those repetitive songs we can't get out of our heads).

I think here about the risks of such, and our ancestors, and how getting too lost in thought has risks, chiefly, becoming prey.


Why should I be good (or bad)?

Another question, but not as frought. In a troop, clan, society of individuals, it seems intuitive that one who exploits the system would make gains that have him one up on everybody else. Steal a goat here, a goat there, and next thing ya know, they might make a religion around ya.

But what if everybody's stealing everybody's goats? That's a condition untenable to troop, clan, or society. So we develop a system of morals, such as, you still my goat, I'm gonna steal me two of yours.

Naw, that won't work, we just went through the great goat stealing scourge of 2067 bc.

So we decide 'You don't steal my goat, I won't date your daugter". Everyone's happy, I keep my goat, daddy don't hafta fret my lechers on his daugjter, and daughter can sneak on over and climb through my window every night.

But what "grounds" this behavior? What binds us to it? For some, its a simple trade of politeness.

For others though, that aint enough. There's still that niggling bit of wonder, of why. In comes the god concept. "It makes God mad". Oh, cool. Nevermind how mad the neighbor got.

Now the god concept fills in not only the gaps in knowledge (why are we here), but can settle contradictory notions (go a goat up, or have a society). It's a remarkable, if faulty psychological tool.

[nobspeople]

Let's go on and point out my amateir status on all things cept dooficity...

I don't know why, but it still amazes me at how some Christians will criticize evolution, but not hold their god to the same standards, ignoring all its 'not-so-intelligent-design'.
I suppose it's easier to make an excuse than face facts.

I think it's down to the nature of god belief, and associated psychology. The god concept is there, I contend, to help folks get past issues or questions that might be so troubling the critter itself risks inability to function.

"Why are we here? What happens when I die?"

These are questions for which no ready, confirmable answers are available. They risk "locking" the questioner in a sort of endless loop of thought, akin to "earworms" (those repetitive songs we can't get out of our heads).

I think here about the risks of such, and our ancestors, and how getting too lost in thought has risks, chiefly, becoming prey.


Why should I be good (or bad)?

Another question, but not as frought. In a troop, clan, society of individuals, it seems intuitive that one who exploits the system would make gains that have him one up on everybody else. Steal a goat here, a goat there, and next thing ya know, they might make a religion around ya.

But what if everybody's stealing everybody's goats? That's a condition untenable to troop, clan, or society. So we develop a system of morals, such as, you still my goat, I'm gonna steal me two of yours.

Naw, that won't work, we just went through the great goat stealing scourge of 2067 bc.

So we decide 'You don't steal my goat, I won't date your daugter". Everyone's happy, I keep my goat, daddy don't hafta fret my lechers on his daugjter, and daughter can sneak on over and climb through my window every night.

But what "grounds" this behavior? What binds us to it? For some, its a simple trade of politeness.

For others though, that aint enough. There's still that niggling bit of wonder, of why. In comes the god concept. "It makes God mad". Oh, cool. Nevermind how mad the neighbor got.

Now the god concept fills in not only the gaps in knowledge (why are we here), but can settle contradictory notions (go a goat up, or have a society). It's a remarkable, if faulty psychological tool.

Tool or not, filling in gaps or not, when it passes into 'I make excuses for my belief, I won't listen to anything else other than my belief, I will disown my family if they don't believe as I do, I create my own logic to make my belief make sense', ad nauseam, it moves from 'belief' to faulty indoctrination and down right intellectual dishonesty.
But hey: if they want to live that chosen, hypocritical, fantasy life style, more power to them. Just don't complain when you're called out about it.