INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

There is also the fact that the designer is too stupid to adopt good ideas.Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys.The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds.In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car.In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car.In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car.The list is almost endless.

• electric wipers instead of vacuum.
• internal combustion engines.
• radial tires.
• heaters.
• air conditioning.
• roll down windows.
• headlights.
• mirrors.
• steering wheels.
• tops.
• spare tires.
• space saver spares.
• starters.
• the change from generator to alternator.

I could go on but that list should give you an idea.In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

LOLCertainly. Look at EVERY single critter that ever lived. Look at them. Almost every single species that ever lived failed and died out, became extinct. The trial and error is that the attempts that don't pass the filter of Natural Selection were tries that failed, errors. No.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Beg your pardon? Sorry but just plain misrepresenting what I say does not strengthen your allegations.I said: Almost EVERY single species. That is not one, not five but many many millions of species.You even quoted what I said while misrepresenting it.

Classic attempt to change the subject.

The subject was examples of trail and error.I showed trial and error. Those critters that do not pass through the filter of Natural selection are errors. those that do pass through are the successes.What is the difference?Each critter has a different selection of mutations. Trial.Sorry but so far you have presented NO evidence of any designer.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, frankly, reading through the thread and the responses, it appears that every time a point is refuted the ID proponents simply change the subject.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That MIGHT be so if that is what we see. But it is not.Many critters continue over time. Some change. At any given time there are many trials in progress. It is called mutations. You have many yourself.Some of those trials succeed, they pass through the filter of Natural Selection.Not all the members of a given species work. Many fail and the critter does not live long enough to reproduce. Those trials that succeed live long enough to reproduce.Changes in individual members of a species. Trials.Some of those trials fail. Error.Those trials that do not fail are the successes.Sorry but you have shown NOTHING that indicates design unless the designer is very inept, incompetent and ignorant.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Can I also point to Message 8 which also deals with the differences between cars and living creatures from a design point of view.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What you will notice though that is common to Message 8, Message 29 and Message 64 is that the ID folk simply pretend that none of them exist. The ID fiction is simply impossible to support. It is a joke, and if it were not so profitable, and if there were not so many gullible Christians begging to be conned, it would have been still-born.They certainly did deserve a POTM.I would say that those three would make the trilogy of Garlic, Silver Bullet and Wooden Stake through the heart of the fiction called ID. Now we just need to wait and see if the Zombie has the grace to stay dead.ID is not just bad Science, not just bad Engineering but even worse Theology.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but that makes no sense. If you "distance yourself from ID" then there is no designer to be "obviously evil and stupid".Either you support the concept of a designer or you don't.If Evolution is wrong then you need to provide the model that explains what is seen.If it is not evolution and not design then what is the model?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah, the

• Inadept
• Inept
• Incompetent
• Inefficient
• Inexpert
• Incapable
• Inappropriate
• Infelicitous
• Ill-timed
• Inelegant
• Inexpert
• Inexperienced

Designer Theory.Certainly a possibility.Loki.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

LOLAnd just why not say "We don't know yet?"Why stick something in like the "Imaginary Designer" that has absolutely NO evidential support instead of continuing the search?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem is that the idea of an Intelligent Designer at the critter level has been absolutely refuted. See Message 8It is still possible at the critter level that there might be some Incompetent Designer, or perhaps a Trickster Designer that is intelligent but malicious, but a benign Intelligent Designer is refuted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

who then provides the following quote:

quote:

---

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)"

​

- R. Dawkins From a 1989 New York Times Book Review

---

I'm not sure why you might object to that quote. It certainly seems accurate. Can you think of any other possibilities?It's likely that the majority of folk that believe in stuff like Intelligent Design are just ignorant, but the people who are pushing it, the folk at ICR and DI quite frankly seem to be just conmen out to take money from gullible Christians.You can't really fault the suckers for being conned, but you certainly can fault the snake oil salesmen that take their money.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not at all. I have never made such a claim. I believe that most of folks the believe in ID are quite sincere, simply ignorant. It is the preachers and pastors and fold at ICR and DI that are after the money. They are a small number, mostly Televangelists and other snake oil salesmen. Certainly you can. It will show your total ignorance about Evolution, but that is already known. As both a Christian and someone who supports Evolution I can simply laugh at any such ridiculous ideas and consider the source.Where do you see bigotry? For example in Message 8 I pretty well demonstrated that if there is a Designer it is not an Intelligent Designer.However, IDist and Biblical Creationists when faced with the overwhelming evidence that supports both the FACT that Evolution happened and the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for what is seen, find that all they can do is to pull out absurd old chestnuts like "supporters of evolution do so because they don't want a GOD" or "they do want multiple sex partners".The facts are that the issues are not related. I and many other folk that support Evolution also believe very strongly in GOD, the Christian GOD. We also have no more than the normal desire for multiple sex partners, either sequential or concomitantly, particularly those of us that fully understand the costs of a relationship.There are many areas where all of us are ignorant. That is neither an insult or reason to suspect bigotry.It is something you can cure.But those who should and do know better, The Hovinds and Morrises, and Meyers and Gishs and Wells are just Snake Oil Salesmen. They know that so many of the Christian Fellowship have been trained and indoctrinated not to question. They make easy targets and the folk at DI and ICR take advantage of their gullibility.Edited by jar, : add spallin arrers

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

One of the best arguments against Intelligent Design has to sex organs. In just about every species they are classic examples of just barely good enough to get by implementation. This is particularly true in the evolved primate called man. There is lousy fit between the males penis and the females vagina, the males sperm are released way away from the females eggs, the womans body produces enzymes that tend to obstruct and kill off many of the sperm even inside her, the male's sperm are so heat sensitive that the producing organ has to he hung outside the body where it is vulnerable to damage, and the males penis is simple an organ that was co-opted to serve multiple functions, only one of which is related to procreation.One of the clearest evidences that critters simply evolved and that there is no Intelligent Designer is how absolutely sub-par the designs for sexual reproduction are. There are designs where the act of copulation kills the male, where copulation causes the male's member to break off and in almost every situation, the pieces parts used for reproduction are just reused and redirected bodily parts that have some other primary purpose.Further, as pointed out way back in Message 8, the few good ideas that show up do not then get incorporated across the various kinds as happens in designed things. Short comings do NOT get picked up early and corrected but as long as the current solution is just barely good enough to get by, no changes or improvements are made.The idea of Intelligent Design at the product level is simply stupid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yet another truly stupid question.I am constantly amazed at how utterly silly the Intelligent Design proponents can be and the lengths of mental gymnastics they go through to defend a ludicrous theory.The point which I made and which you even quoted is ... Species continue because they live long enough to reproduce.As I pointed out, the design is just barely good enough to get by. That is not Intelligent Design, it is Just barely Competent Design.The rest of your post is simply more argument from incredulity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion