INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

The penis and the vagina are perfectly suited for one another. So much so that the assumption of their evolution to occur simultaneously seems highly improbable. If macroevolution were true, then all organisms proliferated via asexual reproduction in the distant past. On other threads we've already gone over the staggering implications of how and why nature would select two separate sexes before. This time I'd like to focus more on the anatomy of our design in order to elucidate Intelligent Design from an engineer's approach.I'm sure you all know most of this information about what contrivances comprise the sex organs, so that I don't need to go into great detail about the anatomy. I'd just like to point out the complimentary facets of the design of each of the sexes.The vagina is composed of elastic muscle that is tubular, capable of expanding and contracting to conform to its counterpart, the male penis. The penis is composed of soft spongy flesh that engorges with blood when sexually aroused making it rigid. The tip of the penis is shaped for maximum efficacy for penetration into the vagina during intercourse.The central purpose for both? Sexual reproduction. During orgasm, the male ejaculates seminal fluid deep into the vagina where the sperm can meet the egg for the fertilization process.On the inside of both males and females, the intricacy of the design is so complex that I think we tend to take it for granted. Whether it is a design by an Intelligent Designer or nature's process of revision, I think we all would at least find commonality in this. The whole process from start to finish in both bodies is incredible. To note how important one male component is to a female component, or a female component is to a male's is quite amazing to me. So much so that it speaks design to me.I'd like to get all of your thoughts on the intricacies of both female and male sex organs, inside the body and out, and to discuss how sexual intercourse employs each function.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

If they are all barely good enough then why are a myriad of species doing just fine? Creatures on the extinction watch list are those that have been relentlessly hunted by humans. The physical process of sex has never been a problem for any known animal. In fact, the biggest problem is just getting them to try to mate, rather than the actual process itself. A lousy fit? In comparison to what? And yet, miraculously, only a small percentage of the human population is incapable of reproducing. Again, amazingly millions of people are born every year. The efficacy is not effected by the enzymes. The fact that sperm are so heat sensitive and that the scrotum will retract in cold weather, and let it all hang down in hot weather is an amazing feature. You criticizing the only design you know of should compel you to make a better design. Multiple functions? Urination and ejaculation are the only uses for the penis I know of-- unless you're into some freaky sex acts. So? Bees die every time they defend themselves or the Queen by after stinging its invader, removing themselves disembowels the bee. According to what? Marine biologists say that the shark has evolved little in the last (x) million years because its so well suited to its environment that overhauls have never been necessary. Any organism not suited to its environment would be severely effected by natural selection. The specie in question, whatever it may be in this case, must wait for the introduction of a beneficial mutation to be selected or it will go extinct. I want to know which species have gone extinct because their sexual organs were so poorly designed.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Co-evolution is a speculative way of getting around what would certainly appear, for face value, as an obvious design. For instance, there are orchids (the exact name escapes me) that will wait for the bee to enter. The stamen will physically pin down the bee and place the pollen on the back of its wings so that when it lets go of the bee, it is capable of fertilizing many flowers. You can say, "Oh, they must have evolved together and established a symbiotic relationship," but that would require so many steps so as to make it highly implausible. Aside from which, it makes allusions towards selection as being capable of intent. But you still believe that unguided nature is capable of producing all that it has all on its own. That's an obscurantist argument. So we hear. The only problem is that creationists and ID'ists are asking where the evidence is of all of these experimentations. If there zillions of trials, then there should be at least millions of preserved evidence of such transmogrifications. Is the appearance of design superficial? How would you know in either case when you have nothing else to compare it to?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

In what capacity? From a gynecological standpoint or, err, otherwise? I'm aware of that. I'm not sure how you think this affects the design though. A baby can fit through a birth canal. I'm aware that very large penises can cause discomfort for very petite women, but that's not an argument against design. Only one other. If they fit into any other, I'd have to say that that person probably suffers from micropenis syndrome. LOL! I don't know the anatomy of female sheep. I don't take trips to the heavy petting zoo.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis