INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Yes, we couldn't rule that out? Because, once a design has been finalized, there is usually nothing more to do but evaluate the prototype after it has been completed. In building a prototype, one would want to ensure quality and physical integrity by sticking to the "blueprints" as faithfully and as dilligently as one could. YES, I'm talking about design by trial-and-error, if necessary.BTW, how do you bold and italicize? That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Thanks for the welcome, Platypus.This god(s) would need to be intelligent enough to produce us. Now, given that humans are on the precipice of at least duplicating life, it shouldn't be difficult to postulate the feasibility. I mean, we can't deny that life happens.What is meant by intelligence? That's a very good question. Is it having the wherewithall to avoid being detected? Because, then I would say that the designer in question has failed miserably.I don't know how the species were created originally. I would guess that it's done in a lab just like we do out here. I don't know when either, or even if it was all at once. I don't buy the crap about six thousand years, though. But then, I wasn't here (I don't think). Thank you for that. That was well said. I get it, now. Science is benign. But, I would agree that it's absolutely necessary, albeit imperfect. this modification happens from TIME TO TIME is what I'm suggesting--not slowly through the means of natural selection--from time to time. How would anyone know that? I imagine the Ford Model A would be a protist of some kind.

Or evil.Or evil AND stupid.But, given the things that this designer would be condoning on this planet, I would say definitely evil, if nothing else.

Exactly.

Don't think you'll get much argument about eliminating an honest god -- from non-christians.But I don't think you'll get agreement that these represent the only alternatives. One other is noted by Chiroptera, and another is Silly Design, design for the purpose of self-entertainment.Silly Design could be portrayed as deceptive but it does not have to be evil.Another possiblity is that the god is not really able to communicate with the creations, their interpretations are too limited.Concluding evil is thus not supported by the argument either.Edited by RAZD, : revised, added another possibility.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes, I know. That was my first question about religion as a kid. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to explain the world, either. It's obvious that humans are naturally inquisitive, and prone to making errors.But, here's the thing. I don't believe humans are stupid. They're programmed to believe what they're told, maybe. And, I have to concede that all humans could be what we would call good, if given enough time. What we often fail to consider is the likelihood that something else is driving the madness we all see, something global.The more intelligent people recognize the presence of unbridled corruption that goes as far as the very top of our food chain. If you don't agree with me then read any book by David Icke, even for fiction. (Just don't stop in the middle of it.) This seems to have been going on for a very long time, maybe all the way back to any practical beginning.Again, that doesn't prove the existence of a designer. Yet, you cannot escape the apparent contradiction. In the face of such corruption, war, genocide and self-prescribed eradication of competing religions, why on earth would anyone identify with the presence of a benevolent god. Not only that, but you would be hypothetically indicating that whatever drive that imposed the idea of religion itself, has been instilled with an intent to precipitate a simplistic rationale for what we see. It would also have been in control of us all along. That seems very unlikely. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would lead to the conclusion that a benevolent god is a hoax, anyway.Furthermore, you don't see any creationists coming to my aid with their blind faith right now, do you? I guess, as they say in church, I'm relatively f#@ked! Typical creationists, all they care about are themselves.

[b]bold[/b] and [i]italics[/i].You can find more dbCodes to the left of the editing window. You can also click the "Peek" button in the lower right-hand corner of each post to see how the special effects are done. (I've requested a "Fireworks" button, but Percy's dragging his feet.) So you're dropping all pretense about your topic being "Intelligent Design"?Maybe we need to get Behe and his cronies to copyright the term "Intelligent Design^TM", so every Tom, Dick and Harry can't use it for completely unrelated subjects.(You can also use HTML tags like ^{^TM}.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Pffha! I would lobby that Silly Design is the pinnacle of antisocial behavior.

Being non-conformist about the purpose is not being non-conformist about the ability. Actually they have hi-jacked the terminology and only do a half-hearted attempt to evaluate the consequences of the concept. They only want it as a wedgie straw man argument.And of course having 500 interpretations of the terminology means they can vacillate more on what they mean to their different audiences.The LAST thing they want is defined terminology.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's a matter of view. You should see the Daily Show clip where Jon Stewart asks Behe about the purpose of the scrotum.But the other side of the coin, is what is the one god that consistently shows up in all pantheons (including the "mono"theistic judeao- ones)?The joker.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yeah...whatever RAZD said.In addition, I was under the impression that the term had been Shanghai'd early on.Creationists should remember, Thou Shall Not Shanghai Legitimate Scientific Pursuits for Thine Own Purposes.Now, who is this Behe & Co, and what do they have to do with intellectual property? I'd like to know more about that. Is there a good search for that?BTW, thanks for the formatting tips also, Ringo.

Yeah, but that would be for the appeasement of...the...hmm.So, Sim Earth 4000 BC, you're saying?

beta

Ha!!!Bingo.

Okay, now that we have whittled the hypothesis down to a reasonable reflection of the input data, what can we derive from it as a testable hypothesis that make a clear and testable distinction between it and evolution?That is, after all, the next step eh?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.