Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

I'm sorry, did you seriously just title this post "unappreciative blasphemy?" Too bad the "master designer" didn't see fit to equip me with a decent set of eyes, like eagle eyes or octopus eyes. Hell, I'd even settle for normal 20/20 human vision. Without corrective lenses, I literally can't see past my own nose. Apparently I was "specially Created" with an inbuilt flaw.Note that octopi don't have this problem. Their more flexible lens structure means they can adjust their lens by themselves, without glasses. That'd be a really neat design feature. Too bad the "designer" left it out of his supposed crowning achievement.It'd also be nice to have a redundant heart. Sure, it increases necessary caloric intake, but hear attacks wouldn't be such a big deal any more with a little redundancy.How about not using the same tube for eating and breathing? I gotta say, any engineer who designed that today, leaving the obvious flaw of being able to choke simply by eating, would be fired.And what the hell is up with this appendix thing? Why do I need to have a vestigial organ that serves no purpose other than to acquire a life-threatening infection? Why'd this all-knowing designer include that? Not our fault there's a lot to complain about. Seriously, while certain parts of the human body are truly spectacular, even those bits contain engineering flaws that no intelligent designer would ever implement. Unless he was drunk, or playing a practical joke on his creations.I mean, if I were to create a sentient robot, the last thing I'm going to do is give it optical sensors that are warped so that it needs to wear additional lenses to see straight, or leave a bunch of circuit boards in the housing that don't perform any function but have a tendency to short out and cause a fire, or use the same jack for AC input as for lubricant intake.Those sorts of things would be stupid when normal lenses exist and simple intelligent design technique eliminates the other flaws. I doubt it - they don't grow back. Maybe if I were a reptile and could grow them back, I'd appreciate an intelligent design choice. I doubt it. Again, their poor design means they won't grow back, and in fact most people experience wearing-out of joints in the form of arthritis or various problems with the cartilage. Maybe if those inherent design flaws weren't present, I'd be more appreciative. Well, I am "blurry-visioned." Those of us with an IQ above freezing call it "nearsightedness" or "myopic vision," but that's okay, Buz. We understand that an idiot would certainly find the inherent design flaws of the human eye, with its lack of focusing ability, the ease with which the retina can be detached, and the many birth defects that can cause blindness or imperfect vision to be "miraculously intelligent." Perhaps if the designer had included something like the nictitating membrane of reptiles so that we wouldn't need to be concerned with getting foreign substances in our eyes or lack of lubrication. As it is, those aren't very intelligent designs either. Not really. But I'd definitely appreciate the addition of wings and the musculature to use them. Such a shame the intelligent designer gave us such imperfect memories, isn't it? I mean, the computer I'm using right now has a basically perfect memory. If I worked off of a flash drive, I wouldn't even have to worry about moving parts failure. Why couldn't the intelligent designer give us memories like that? I wouldn't have needed to spend so many hours studying in school! Surely the "intelligent designer" could come up with a better method than our forgetful brains!
Perhaps if your body suddenly lost the ability to coagulate blood, you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed. I'll say it very plainly, Buz: if the human body was specifically designed, the designer was on crack. An idiot. A fool. A complete and total moron. There is no "glory" in giving the so-called pinnacle of your creation inherant flaws that most of the "lesser" creatures you made don't themselves posses. Anyone who thinks my eyes, the ones that can't even recognize my own mother at four paces, are "intelligently designed" when birds of prey can see clearly for miles and octopi can self-correct for the sort of lens flaws that plague me is a moron. Anyone who thinks using the same tube for breathing and eating is an example of "masterful" design is an idiot.Your Jehova is an incompetent boob if we are the result of his direct and special creation.The only thing impressive about the human body in terms of design is that it actually works at all. The only miracle is that we haven't all developed cancer, don't all have vision problems or appendicitis, and don't all have birth defects resulting from the inherantly flawed DNA replication cycle.

Only partially true. We have not as yet designed a superior immune system to that of the human body...but most of our creations don't need to fight disease. We have not been able as yet to create a sentient being, but that's not the part in question. The useless and even outright harmful vestigial organs like the appendix or wisdom teeth, the parts prone to malfunction or deformity like the eyes, and the silly design where even a little forethought would have resulted in a more survivable organism like the breathing/eating tube, all are examples that we can and have improved on nature. A modern digital camera off the shelf at Best Buy is superior to the human eye. That is a cop-out, so I'm not even sure why you're mentioning it. The "god has a plan" or "you cant understand the motivations of the divine" arguments are idiotic and always have been. It falls into the "we don't know everything, so we can't know anything" category. The data we do have suggests that an intelligent designer would not design anything like the human body. There are just too many obviously inefficient, harmful, or simply risky design features in the human body to say that it in any way coincides with an "intelligent" design.That said, all of my arguments apply only to Creationist "made from mud" scenarios, not any scenario in which a deity simply allowed humanity to evolve through natural processes. Our own experimentation with evolutionary design has shown that, left to its own devices, the evolutionary process can come up with some outlandish results that still work very well, even if they are inefficient. It is entirely possible that a deity orchestrated the processes of nature with perfect precognition to result in the eventual evolution of humanity. But those like Buz who believe that human beings were specially Created, not evolved, must also believe that human beings were designed exactly as they are. We have many examples of features in other parts of the animal kingdom that work better than their analogues in humans, and so there is no conceivable reason for a designer to not give humanity eyes that function like an octopus, or remove that appendix that becomes so risky when left in. Well, yes, those would be some of those I'm talking about. I'm sure you can conceive of a "reason" to have a third thumb jutting from the back of your head if you allow that its purpose is to encourage "growth through hardship." But that only works when assuming the existence of an incomprehensible deity - it is not in any way evidence of design. From all objective analysis, that third thumb would be an idiotic addition from an engineering standpoint, which means that the evidence we do have points to any such designer being a moron.You can't use "any explanation I can pull out of my imagination" to bypass the fact that many of the features of the human body simply don't make sense from a design standpoint. Your approach is one of apologetics, where you begin with the conclusion (humanity was designed) and look for supporting evidence while either ignoring contradictory evidence or trying to "interpret" it in such a way that supports your premade conclusion. That's not a valid method of investigation. That's a theological argument, and I'm not going to address it very far. All I'll mention is that you just claimed above that the deity's motives may be completely incomprehensible to "mere humans," and this represents an inconsistency in your argument. Frankly, though, I could care less about theological arguments - all I care about is the objective evidence we have of the human body itself, and that evidence is not suggestive of an intelligent designer. Really, it all boils down to apologetics. None of this involves following evidence to conclusions, but rather using predetermined conclusions to shape our interpretation of evidence. I could just as easily make up such "explanations" by assuming that a malevolent unicorn created the world as an exercise in torturing humanity like a child with ants, and that those parts of us that do work or give us pleasure were intended only to make our misery all the greater when our flawed bodies fail us.

Which doesn't prevent me from pointing out that such an approach is inherantly invalid as a method of investigating nature.But all of the apologetic twisting about possible motivations for an "intelligent" designer that would account for all of our flaws, while departing completely from any sort of rational and objective discussion (because literally any "explanation" that can be imagined has equal validity in the face of no evidence), we can make a few judgment calls about any supposed "designer."1) If the "designer" did not actually specifically design each individual organism, but rather is the divine watchmaker and simply kicked the whole thing off and sat back to let life form and evolve through natural causes with no concern for ethics but rather a goal of creating a resilient and diverse strain of life that manages itself and adapts to environmental contraints with a focus on life itself surviving as opposed to individual species...well, that designer did a good job according to those goals. But that designer does not match up with the brand of ID that typically springs up, which is nothing more than a new name for Creationism. This is not a personal deity, and is compeltely contrary to the account of Genesis.2) If the "designer" did specifically Create each species, we can conclude that since each feature must have been added on purpose, the designer is either incompetent or cruel. Either he's an idiot and couldn't recognize an efficient and well-made design if he was staring it in the face, or he purposefully added flaws to cause suffering. Since other organisms exist that do not posses many of the flaws human beings do, it can be concluded that despite having the ability to resolve many of our design flaws, the designer chose specifically not to. Was he stupid when he gave me extreme nearsightedness, or was he just being mean? We also know that, since the designer apparently made every effort to disguise his efforts and leave no actual evidence of what he did (except of course to a single nomadic middle-eastern population, not in the form of evidence but of oral tradition), he must be a trickster deity, akin to the Norse Loki.The latter is indeed the purpose of this thread, and I fail to see any further conclusions about any such designer based on the evidence (such that it is). You can equivocate over possible motivations for "building character" and causing growth through hardship, but that really just means he's being cruel since he could have Created humanity with the desired personality traits already built-in. The whole thing frankly becomes a ridiculous exercise becasue we aren't basing any of this on evidence but rather on any imagined untestable hypothesis that comes across our minds. As I said before, if you claim the designer made a perfect design that corrupted after a fall, or that the flaws were built-in to cause growth through adversity, I can just as easily claim that a malevolent unicorn did it just to watch us squirm. We have the same amount of evidence in that regard. I don't see any reason why we should not. That's the problem with apologetics I was pointing out - you can come up with literally any purpose for design that enters your mind, and they're all going to be equally valid becasue there is no evidence of the designing itself. It's the same argument I can use against any theist - you can choose any number of deities to exist, with any set of properties desired, because they all have the same amount of evidence supporting them: none.If the designer of humanity intentionally made us this way, he is either cruel or an idiot. There is no other way to explain the continued existence of the appendix, the imperfect human eye when far better natural examples exist, or our other flaws. Feel free to exclaim that it's intended to make life a challenge, but all that amounts to is a deity that is indifferent to human suffering and death. What would it say about me if I poked out a baby's eye so that over its lifetime it could "grow through adversity?" Wouldn't that make me a disgusting, sadisting fuck? If I designed and created a sentient, pain-feeling robot with specific design flaws that ensured it would spend its entire existence in constant pain, without the ability to see its surroundings even though it has optical sensors, and ensured its memory would begin to fail and its accumulated personality would degenerate over time just so that it could "grow from adversity," doesn't that make me about the most evil bastard you've ever heard of? What if I made him start out with an efficient design that lacked the constant suffering, but "corrupted" him into his "fallen" state the moment he disobeys me even a little? What if I made all of his offspring carry the same design flaws becasue of his disobedience? Wouldn;t that make me a really sick, vindictive asshole? Even if this "growth" was intended to earn an eternity in heaven where all the design flaws get fixed and everybody is happy, I made the rules for how to get into heaven in the first place, so all of teh suffering required to earn it is still my fault.So how exactly is the supposed designer not either cruel or an idiot?If we're assuming the Christian deity most often believed in, the one who "loves" humanity and is supposedly "good" and "all-knowing," how does this match up with a design that contains egregious flaws? Is he cruel and uncaring, forcing us to suffer to "grow"? That doesn't match up with the whole benevolence part. Is he a moron who for all his miraculous reality-warping powers simply couldn't pass a basic engineering course? That doesn't match up with the omniscience. So how do you rationalize this? The only way I see is to compeltely stop using the Bible as a literal guide, and to understand that such a deity would not design humanity the way we are. On the basis that in 100% of every ID argument I have ever participated in, the cdesign proponentists were actually Christian Creationists.But feel free to include them, as it certainly fits the purpose of this thread - id human beings were specifically designed, the designer is either an idiot or an asshole. The silly flaws in the human body don't really leave room for anything else if you assume specific creation. Except that he apparently made really shitty eyes with a fraction of the resolution or spectrum detection of our digital cameras. And the issue isn't that he was capable of making eyes at all, it's that he gave human beings a really crappy set, but gave other species better eyes that don't suffer from the same flaws. It points to either a lack of design at all, a stupid designer, or a cruel designer. The point is not to say that we have "higher technological abilities" than a designer, but to point out that an intelligent designer, particularly an omnipotent and omniscient one, would not do such things unless he was being intentionally cruel.Again, we can start practicing apologetics some more and say "well, the designer made us perfect, but then the devil who is cruel corrupted the perfect design after the Fall" or any such other imaginary scenarios, but the fact is there is no evidence suggesting such things - I could just as easily attribute the whole thing to my malevolent unicorn.If we look only at the evidence we posses regarding the human body, we can easily see that any designer would have had to be either stupid or unnecessarily cruel. And as a rule, I never attribute to malevolence what can just as easily be attributed to incompetence.

This bugs me. It's not you at all (because I think we do agree at least for the scope of this thread), it's the entire thread itself - our basic axiom here, that there is a designer, is itself an illogical violation of parsimony. That's why "both sides" can be logical. I mean really, there are nearly unlimited possibilities when you don't have much solid data. We know that human beings are far from ideal designs - very, very far - but even within that constraint, nearly infinite numbers of "explanations" can be conjured up by simply assuming that we are designed. None of those explanations differ too far from either "imcompetent" or "intentionally cruel" when special creation is also assumed, but the simple fact is that this thread's topic is entirely set up for subjective interpretation becasue it cannot be based on objective evidence that doesn't exist.This I suppose is the major flaw of the "if there was a designer, he must have been an idiot" argument. It begins by assuming the logically unfounded conclusion of the opponent, and is essencially an appeal to consequence (in that the argument is still intended to convince the audience that there is no designer because such a designer would need to be stupid). I'd much rather stick with the "where's your evidence of a designer" argument, as it forces the cdesign proponentist to meet the burden of proof by providing evidence of any design at all. Such "evidence" has thus far been extremely easy to refute, and while it never convinces the cdesign proponentist to concede, the undecideds in the audience are typically aware of which side is full of shit.I have few problems with non-Creationist Intelligent Design (the blind watchmaker designer), I simply find no evidence of it. I do have a problem with Creationist IDers, because their version of ID still involves special Creation, something that is astoundingly easy to refute.Of course, for those who do believe in a watchmaker-type designer who designs life as opposed to designing each "kind," we're still dealing with an assumption based on personal credulity rather than objective evidence, and it's still a violation of parsimony without objective evidence to support it. But that's far better than insisting on a magical designer who pops life into existence in a few short days, invalidates evolution and basically everything else in all of science, and generally requires their deity to be either an incompetent boob or an royal asshole.

Wait...your "all-powerful" deity is afraid of mere human beings? You don't usually make a lot of sense, Lucy, but this is just absurd. It's certainly a Creationist trait, I'll give you that. This is a strawman. Nobody is claiming that human beings can create something better than humanity from scratch (yet). However, we can improve on a lot of features that would reduce suffering and/or result in a more surviveable and adaptable design. For instance, the very first thing I'd do is make separate tubes for eating and breathing so you could never choke while eating ever again. That's an obvious improvement over the human design, something that would have been trivially simple to do for any being that could design and create humanity. "Sure many of the features are stupid; let's just ignore them and concentrate on the things that aren't completely broken!"That's not much of an argument. If I gave you a piece of chocolate and smashed your legs with a hammer, would you really say "sure my legs are shattered, I'll never walk again, I might even die, and it hurts really bad, but hey I've got this chocolate!"? Ignoring the negative and insisting that we should just be thankful for whatever we have is not an example of critical thinking, it's an example of brainwashed idiocy where you'll refuse to acknowledge the negative no matter how its pointed out. I'm very happy for your friend.However, if the idiot plans have been less stupid, perhaps your friend's liver would not have needed to fail. Personally, if I were an all-knowing omnipotent designer who was going to make a sentient lifeform, I'd make it a whole lot easier to change out bad parts like faulty livers, and I'd be sure that everyone had interchangeable organs so we wouldn't have to worry about rejection. But that's just me.But here's what really bugs me. Your designer gives your buddy a bad liver (I don't know what caused his liver failure, since you haven't told us, but this still serves to illustrate the silliness of your mindset). You don't think this is a bad thing, even though your friend is likely to die. You don't think the design is flawed. And when your friend receives a replacement, not from your designer but by human science, you actually thank your designer for repairing the faulty part he designed, even though the designer wasn't the one to repair it - human beings replaced it with a new one!This reminds me of a story I heard from North Korea once. An American doctor was allowed to visit the country and do some charity medical work; specifically, he was perfoming various eye surgeries, repairing cataracts, etc. Invariably, the people whose vision he restored would not thank him. Instead, they'd drop to teir knees in front of the large poster of Kim Jung Ill, and thank "Great Leader" for restoring their vision, which would likely not have been lost in the first place if "Great Leader" was running something better than a third-world dictatorship hellhole where normal people will almost never receive medical care. Jung Ill was in a way responsible for these people's vision problems, and yet they thanked him instead of the doctor actually performing the surgery when their vision was restored. This is eaxtly like you with your friend's liver.The "design," assuming there is one, is so bad that human doctors have to try to repair its failures all the time. This isn't just maintenance, or repairing parts that were broken due to external forces like a fall; in many cases the problems doctors are trying to solve are the direct result of the flaws of the human body, flaws that are inherent in our "design." I'm very tall, and it's extremely likely I'm going to have back problems because of my height. An engineer wouldn't have made me taller than my back could safely support without wearing out. People choke on their food every day because the same tube is used for breathing and eating. The human eye cannot compensate for imperfections in the lenses and has a blind spot not because better parts weren't available to your "designer," but becasue he apparently just felt like giving us the shitty eyes.Most Creationists will never acknowledge that any part of the human body was "designed" with less than perfection. They'll try to sidestep the issue by blaming problems on "the fall," or say that their Gdesignerod must have included the flaws to encourage personal growth. They'll ignore it by saying "you've got a perfectly good brain, why not do something constructive with it," because to the cdesign proponentist, critical thinking is a sin when it comes to their religious beliefs.The rest of us can see quite plainly that the human body is a perfect example of inefficient design and detrimental features that a first-year engineering student would never make. If we assume that there is design just for the purposes of this debate, the Gdesignerod is either an idiot, cruel, or uncaring and working very hard to leave no trace of his intelligence for his cdesignreations to find.

Ahem.I deny that there is any objective evidence that has been presented that solidly supports an argument of design in the Universe, and particularly here on planet Earth.Every argument I've ever seen for design has thus far been a violation of parsimony and based entirely on personal credulity.The "Wow, it's complicated" argument is silly, because complexity does not necessarily imply design (in fact, for an engineer, the opposite is true).The "it couldn't have happened by itself" argument is nothing more than personal incredulity and unfounded assertion. Idiocy at its best.The "irreducible complexity" argument has been dismantled and destroyed so many times that few even bring it up around here any more.If you think you can do better, and would like to back up your statement above, then please make a thread in the Science forums.

People also choke on their food when they do chew, and people typically choke by accident, not because they tried to swallow without chewing, smartass.Further, redundancy is a good thing. in fact, some of the best features of the human body are redundant. Your kidneys are redundant, so if one fails you still have another. Your lungs are redundant. your eyes, ears, arms, legs, testicles/ovaries, all redundant. Redundancy prevents a single point of failure, as any engineer or IT person will tell you. The question is, why are there so many features in teh human body that are not redundant? It's obvious any Gdesignerod knows of the concept of redundancy, but chooses not to use it in extremely obvious places. This appears to be a foolish choice on its face.What you don't want is a single point of failure, or unnecessary complexity. For example, that single tube for breathing and eating is a single point of failure. Our eyes are an example of unnecessary complexity - the nerve bundle passes through the retina, creating a blind spot. A simpler design would be like the eyes many other non-mammalian species have, and have the nerve cluster attach from behind eliminating the blind spot. If the human body is a "folly" without its "purpose," what purpose could it fulfill that is not either stupid or unnecessarily cruel? If blinding a child serves a "purpose," how is that purpose not cruel? If having one tube for both breathing and eating serves a "purpose," what purpose could that possibly be that is not also compeltely stupid or unnecessarily cruel?If you admit that the human body is "nothing but a folly" when deprived of its supposed purpose, how does that not demonstrate that the purpose itself must be unnecessarily cruel or stupid in order to require such a flawed creation?Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Appeal to motive. You are not attacking the argument, but rather our motivation for making the argument. This is fallacious reasoning. Try again. Army engineers tend not to create unnecessary complexity or leave out beneficial redundancy, though. Why does your supposed Gdesignerod's" purpose involve such foolish design concepts as have been mentioned in this thread? If your Gdesignerod's purpose requires flawed eyesight, vestigial organs that have a tendency to become lethally infected, and a single tube for breathing and eating, doesn't that make your Gdesignerod's purpose either stupid or cruel as well?

Just as a general reply, I'd like to modify my position somewhat on the inltellectual/ethical qualities of any designer of the human species.Previously, I've said that such a designer may simply be cruel, and I no longer think that's the case.While many of the flaws inherent in the human body would suggest that a designer, if he is assumed to be intelligent, would also have to desire unnecessary human suffering, there are other features that simply don't make sense with such a perspective.The many vestigial features of the human body simply have no purpose. The appendix could be interpreted to be a cause of suffering and therefor support the case of a cruel designer, but features like the tailbone or the remnants of the nictitating membrane serve no purpose whatsoever. They aren't cosmetic, they serve no function, they're just...there. Why would a designer of any sort include a tailbone for an organism that doesn't have a tail, particularly one so small as ours that you can't even see it through the flesh?The only answers would be that either such a designer is incompetent, including extraneous features for no purpose whatsoever (cruel, benevolent, mysterious or otherwise), or the designer is explicitly attempting to disguise his existence.To me, it seems rather odd to suggest that a designer capable of creating a sentient lifeform lacks the engineering skill to simply not include such extraneous features, and so we're left with a designer who doesn't want to be found and is making every effort to make his designs look like they were not designed at all. Some sort of Loki-like trickster deity who simply enjoys sowing chaos and confusion.But then, we violate parsimony. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, why are we assuming it's a goose? We're invoking an extraneous entity in the form of the designer when it appears that there is, in fact, no designer whatsoever. The "evidence" for a designer becomes a matter of a preconceived conclusion, that the designer exists, and then a reinterpretation of the evidence (that humanity does not appear to be designed) to support the polar opposite of an objective interpretation (the lack of an appearance of design means the designer must be trying to hide its existence, as opposed to there simply not being a designer). This is of course fallacious reasoning, along the lines of apologetics rather than an inquiry focusing on accuracy.For the purpose of this thread, I suppose it's "valid" to say that any designer of humanity, because we are assuming one exists, must then be either incompetent or be attempting to hide its existence. But the entire premise is logically unsound - there is no appearance of design in the face of the detrimental, the inefficient, the sub-optimal, and the plain odd features of the human body. Pretending otherwise is along the lines of saying "if Santa exists, he must be able to break the speed of light to deliver all of those gifts in a single night." Explaining the conclusion through apologetics doesn't make the conclusion any more valid, and doesn't make the extraneous entities likely to exist.

So...what does this have to do with the topic? Your response doesn't tie in very well at all. You seem to be explaining why death exists, while simultaneously exclaiming that death doesn't really exist if you're Christian.This is specific Christian rambling. it doesn't have anything to do with a discussion of an intelligent designer, unless you're trying to point out that we are "designed" to die (again, it's difficult to decipher what your position is since you neglected to actually state anything beyond reciting Christian doctrine).If this is the case, why did the "designer" include useless vestigial parts like the tailbone that serve no purpose? They have nothing to do with death or life, you can't see many of them with the naked eye, and they have no actual function beyond simply existing. Regardless of the specific designer you ascribe to, what possible explanation exists for such random inclusions in the supposed design? It would seem that, even granting the Christian "purpose" of humanity, those features would still be extraneous and at best a curious addition, an engineering faux pas, and at worst extraneous addition of useless parts demonstrating design incompetence. It's along the lines of the Winchester Mystery Spot in California, a house built by a crazy lady with stairs to nowhere and rooms with no doors or windows - many of the extraneous parts don't serve any purpose at all, not even a decorative one, they're just...there.Your "designer" still seems to be an incompetent one, or is attempting to hide his existence. Considering the Christian deity's focus on gaining glory and being worshiped, he certainly doesn't fit the model of a designer trying to avoid detection. Was he simply incompetent then? What's your opinion on the assumed design of the human body?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Take your addle-brained ultra-repressive "dissent is evil" ant-critical-thinking religeous ranting somewhere else.Is your response to all of the posts in this thread really just "Oh yeah?! Well God's gonna GET you!!!"Fuck off.

So, your position is that your deity added the appendix and tailbone, combined the breathing/eating tubes into one, restructured the human eye to be inferior to other eyes, and generally completely redid the "perfect" human body into the substandard version we see today, becasue we "departed from the creator's law?"Wow. That's a really odd combination of the Loki-like trickster who wants to make everything look exactly like he doesnt exist, and a royal dick throwing a tantrum.It's incredibly funny that your attempt to refute the fact that the human body does not objectively appear to be designed is "It was designed well, but all the crappy stuff was tacked on later." It's exactly the same as the retarded explanation for why light from distant stars has reached Earth in such a short timeframe - "God created the light en-route." It's simple apologetics. Ignore what the evidence actually shows, and instead create idiotic excuses that warp the evidence into meaning the exact opposite to support a preconceived conclusion.By all objective appearances, the human body has no direct designer. This means if we assume that there was a designer, he must be working incredibly hard at hiding his presence, or be completely incompetent (and possibly also being a giant asshole). None of these, of course, fit the Christian deity, and so it's easy to see by their reactions to this topic that all of these moronic cdesign proponentists are not really interested in ID or science at all, but rather are simply trying to weasel their completely subjective and unsupported beliefs into common acceptance.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

So, exactly how is "ignorance and departure from the designer's precepts" responsible for my tailbone, or my appendix? What is the mechanism by which "ignorance and departure from the designer's precepts" results in such flaws?This is a very popular claim, Buz, but it doesn't actually explain anything. It's a bare assertion used by apologetics to rationalize your bullshit beliefs with reality, and to any party with an IQ above freezing, it's obviously devoid of any explanatory value, completely untestable, and wholly detached from reality.

Actually, Buz, the reason ancient peoples drank wine was the alcohol content. you see, they didnt know about those germ things swimming around in ye olde water well, and dysentary kills. The alcohol content of wine made wine quite literally safer to drink than water.Your apologetic bullshit about a designer for wine is simple nonsense - the Biblical characters had no way of knowing about such things as cholesterol. What they did know is that drinking water sometimes gives you a lethal case of diarrhea, and wine doesn't.Your natural foods BS is not only off-topic, it's wrong. You do know why we use pesticides and other "unnatural" treatments for foods, right?It's becasue the natural stuff can kill us. Why does your all-wise "designer" make milk need to be pasteurized? Why does meat need to be cooked so thoroughly? More bullshit about how we've abandoned the designer's plans and these are the results?

Explain.What is your reason for thinking a "creator" is involved?What is your reason for thinking that living organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment?What is your reason for rejecting the Theory of Evolution as a model for this adaptability?What mechanism do you believe drives this adaptability instead of evolution?