INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Actually, there are several ways to relate the animal kingdom to design principles. Take muscle tissue, for instance. Skeletal muscle is an actuator. It is used throughout kingdom to perform or maintain the necessities of life itself. It could be considered a basic building block. It is used differently among different animals for the same purpose. Yet, if you could get the calf of a frog to work in a human finger, it would provide the same utility. For skeletal muscles, mechanical leverage is the basic operating principle. They would be analagous to solenoids, a motorized rack and pinion, etc, and inversely anologous to pistons. It is a means for translation, that is normally contained”or at least protected to operate--entirely within the physical envelope of the vessel.Now, we see that mechanism in just about every single species of animal we know of, and it uses bones and cartilage as linkages. In fact, you could say that its what defines animals. You’ll notice that skeletal muscle tissue is roughly a homogenous material, with an allowance for signal input and a means for delivering fuel and physical maintenance. The elemental unit would then be the striated muscle cell. This is biology. We know all this.Another mechanism is protection from the elements. That structure is skin. Another mechanism is converting chemical energy into heat energy or electric potential energy, and so on. All these things have a counterpart in automobiles. Could you design a car to make its own fuel? Probably not. But you could make one that found its own fuels, and engaged them to the point of consumption. Now, the programming it would take to do that would be monstrositous. But, it would be completely possible.We could also break down the human body into all the separate systems required for it to exist. And if you do that you would see an arrangement of systems with which you could apply to all animals, in terms of their intended purpose here, and their ability to serve that purpose. It’s not rocket science. What you would then see is that some animals eat plants and some animals eat other animals. But, in the utilitarian sense, you could treat them both the same way because they both control populations.So, then the question becomes: Is there another purpose to some or all animals. I’ll start with humans. What do humans do in their free time for work? Well, many things. They mine gold, silver, diamonds, and maybe other raw materials which are not used for their relatively unique physical properties, and greatest utility. They create a wide array of gases, which are harmful to them. From a distance, they provide the appearance of intelligent occupation and control, at least on the surface (of the earth). They emit methane, ammonia and other potentially useful compounds. They also drive the production of other animals that emit the same things. They produce an enormous quantity of heat. And they appear to be gradually reducing the amount of total oxygen in the atmosphere. We can make more oxygen. But, converted solar energy is required in the process. Those steps unfortunately produce more heat and more carbon dioxide, while reducing the ability of the earth’s surface to produce oxygen naturally.It should be clear that this earth is absorbing more and more of the Sun’s energy all the time. The earth is like one giant battery. There is no future for humans, even if we do cut back on the resources we use. Global warming cannot be reversed by us, unless we can reflect all of the Sun’s light. This place has been absorbing energy long before we even GOT here.So, in the same utilitarian sense, our final question seems to boil down to this: Why would we allow our intelligence to accelerate our own demise. The answer is that we would not. Then, there should be a couple more questions for somebody else . Who WOULD do that? And why?By the way, I checked out some stuff by H.P. Lovecraft. I particularly liked a graphic novel that I found titled Call of Cthulhu. I also liked History of the Necronomicon, and an audio of At the Mountains of Madness . interesting theories.

And, a natural history of things would be a worthwhile subject, as it is. In that sense, our zoology would represent a living record, a bookmark, of all the changes that appear to have taken place, and may take place in the future.There is no question that the work encompassed by evolutionary biology has thoroughly documented those changes, if not the order that they occured in, as well. At the very least, it is a catalog of some of the things that have lived. That's a pretty good start, if you think of all the trillions upon trillions of species that must have lived between the ones we know of, if the theory of evolution was correct.

Jar, I've already stipulated to intelligent, but...Inadept? I wouldn't say that.
Inept? At diplomacy, I would say hell yes.
Incompetent? From an overall perspetive, no doubt about it.
Inefficient? Don't know that yet.
Inexpert? I don't think that word exists.
Incapable? of seeing the trees for the forest.
Inappropriate? Entirely.
Infelicitous? Don't know that, either.
Ill-timed? When is now a good time for corruption?
Inelegant? Probably uglier than a two-headed monkey with one chin, Jar.
Inexpert? You said that twice, Jar, and I believe it still doesn't exist. In fact, I don't know that is has ever existed.
Inexperienced? The jury is still out.You forgot:Insensitive.
Inconceivably stupid.
Incontheivable!
Incompatible.
Incontinent.
Insatiable?
Insipid.
Indiscrete.
Indiscreet.

That's right. And, how do we know that it's not being mistaken as speciation? As platypus so eloquently pointed out earlier, a Chihuahua is apparentually sexually isolated from I think it was a Great Dane. Yet, as we know, all we need is a little artificial insemination to make some Greatchihuahuas.Furthermore, do we know for a fact that whenever a new strain gets "far" enough away from its species of origin so as to become sexually isolated, that speciation has taken place? You should probably know as well as I do, that scientifically speaking, the answer is no. All you need is a competing explanation to rule out that certainty.Here, let me just make one up for you (as if it's difficult at all).Let's say there's a feature that's coded into the very syllables of genetic sequencing that eliminates the possibility of taking a line of "aggressive" hybridization too far away from its original species. Maybe there's a particular series of codons, or a second-order marker of some kind, that expresses sterility as an offspring genotype, if it is not matched closely enough by the mate. Does science know enough yet, to rule that out? Please let me know if it does, because the whole idea of "speciation" hinges on this, regardless of whether the creationists concede to it or not.Speaking of that, I'm going to arbitrarily concede to the shot-in-the-dark known as "speciation" myself, in the interest of advancing my own idea. The core of my theory doesn't rely on the absence of speciation, anyway. But, this should help to clear out some of the riff-raff on this thread.It's not that I could be convinced of speciation in the least bit, in favor of the type grouping we see in domestic dogs and cats. Keep in mind that we could easily domesticate any animal, and start making some positively twisted breeds, like we did with dogs. I mean do that with monkeys, sharks, bears, birds, lizards, you name it. Forget fruit flies. Let's go to town!

It seems to me, this would-be king that you may be referring to wouldn't be a very good king after all, at least not a very effective one.The problem is that a designer of such things as civilization would already know that delivering its message thru its "messengers" would not work for anybody except the naive and the dim. The designer would understand that the likelihood of tainting the message would be too great. The message would get stepped all over, by the very things that the designer was "clever" enough to recognize beforehand. That leads to the conclusion that the designer is corrupt. That's just common sense.Let me address some of the things you point out directly... We like to fornicate because we are designed to like it. What more information is there to throw out? And yes, why wouldn't this wizard of Oz come out and explain anything to us directly? Maybe it's because the designer would be exposed for what it really is. People fornicate because they like it. Nothing wrong with that.People steal because they want their fair share, in the face of ubiquitous corruption. And, they're going to do whatever they feel like doing to get it. They don't care about what creationists believe. Where is the designer for them?People commit adultery for the same reason they fornicate. A black book with gold letters isn't going to stop that.People have idols because there is nothing better to believe in.People murder for perceived justice. And remember, you can't believe everything you see on TV.

Touche, I couldn't have said it better myself.Yeah, it looks like we got a bad rubber on our hands.

I'm assuming that you don't buy the idea of a benevolent god, either.So, if you treat the earth as a closed system, would it matter where they came from? And, by the same token, would it even matter whether it was robots, aliens, or a designer?Because, regardless of what it was, wouldn't our imperatives be the same?

Thanks, platypus.Let me restate my case, and then I'll get back to some of the other posts on this thread...While it remains difficult to show how life began here, science itself suggests that it could not have happened by chance. Indeed, scientific studies on entropy tend to support this claim. Biologists have also documented the structural order in all living things quite nicely. This order wouldn’t be natural by any means, since, to any practical extent, the next closest things to indicate natural order in the known universe are crystals and circular motion.So, for our purposes, we can go straight back to the origin(s) of life on earth, and start there. We don’t need to concern ourselves with rocks or rainbows for this, because they would seem to be immaterial anyhow. But, if we’re clever, willing to acknowledge the value of common sense, and eager to accept what we directly observe, we would rightly consider the INTENT behind certain conditions, and whatever form that intent may take. Science cannot rule out the presence of an unseen being. That simply would not be what science truly is. Translation: science must at least allow for the presence of a builder.Even if speciation did occur, even if evolution was an actual process, nothing would have properly explained the initiation of life itself. This is where science has no choice but to embrace any alternative. When science puts a stranglehold on evolution, as if for dear life, science fails. What is strange is, it only seems to happen with idea of evolution. Science admits to this day that it has no clue what causes magnetism, or what the intrinsic nature of electricity is. Though, science has done very well to predict the EFFECTS of magnetism and electricity, to the point that it is useful. But, the opposite seems to be the case with evolution. Why? It is almost as if the theory of evolution itself is bound by an agenda. At least that’s what the evidence implies.Take the JFK assassination as an example. The official line is a lone gunman. Yet, most people suspect anything other than that simple explanation. That’s because it doesn’t fit the evidence. So, whatever competing explanations come out, they are likely to be welcomed by those who remain skeptic. Even if separate alternatives do not concur with each other, each is taken as being more likely than the lone gunman idea. And, although we know that any two competing alternatives cannot both be right, we are left among them by default, to sort them out indefinitely if necessary. Many would call that science.Now, suppose someone announced that the person who REALLY killed JFK was his wife, Jackie. And, nothwithstanding your initial disbelief and indignation, your attention was brought to the original Zapruder film. In that film, you were shown again and again how Jackie appeared to prop something in her right hand under his left jaw across from his exit wound, how she appeared to hold his left arm down with her left hand as the bullet left his skull, and how she did not even flinch at the blow as she appeared to drop something out of view behind his body before reaching in the direction opposite to the visible path of the bullet. You can’t believe what you’re watching, yet you’re seeing it with your own two eyes.Your first, second, and third impressions would be “IMPOSSIBLE”. You might clench onto your existing beliefs even more securely. Yet, you yourself would admit that if someone could gently ease you away from ANY misconceptions you have, and take you closer to the truth, you would be willing to go. You realize that you must agree to at least have a look. And, at that point, it becomes more and more reasonable. You see for yourself that it is actually possible, even if you don’t have all the pieces to the puzzle yet. It’s the same film you’ve seen images of many times. Never once did you even consider the possibility. And, common sense tells you it’s so, while fear tells you that knowing this would not be for your own good.You find for yourself that the reason you hadn’t ever considered it was because there was already too much on your plate. The idea itself would be too tough to swallow on your own, and you have the tendency to go with the flow and believe what you’re told. Yet, the more you think for yourself, the more questions you have. Why did she marry Onassis afterward? Why did Marilyn Monroe die, as well? What else was going on in the news at the time? You begin to see a totally new picture unfold, different from anything that was supposed to explain the original inconsistenties to begin with. That, my friends, is just an example.It is analogous to the idea of a malevolent designer, intelligent in the ways of construction, and ungodly stupid in the ways of concealment and diplomacy. The lone gunman theory would equate to the idea of a benevolent god. And, the commonly recited alternatives would lay their claim to science. But, the truth may lie somewhere else. Look around you. Are there any world events that you know of, which indicate the presence of a benevolent god? Remember, as amazing as life may seem to us, it wouldn’t mean we aren’t slaves, put here to provide an unjust service.For centuries, Western Civilization has been doing “god’s work” one murder at a time, religious massacre after religious massacre, genocide after genocide after genocide. I’m insulted by the religious community. It would have you believe that there’s a big reward when the work is done, a light at the end of the tunnel, a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.Look at it this way, would anyone walk up to your counter with some merchandise, and promise you that he’s good for the money? No, because you wouldn’t be that gullible. What if he said he’ll be good for the money after your shop closes down, as long as you take his word for it? Would you fall for it? No? Yes? No? What if he told you he’d pay you ten times the amount? Would you still be a sucker? I hope not, for my own good.Edited by limbosis, : clarity

I really like the sound of that. It seems almost obvious, after it's presented. I would think we are the result. That might explain how things like nominal body size and tendencies toward cannibalism are taken into account, things that aren't well accomodated by the theory of evolution.Cannibalism is actually supported by the theory of evolution, in that it rewards the fittest and reinforces the idea of natural selection.Nominal body size gets dumped all over by the theory of evolution, which maintains that average body size sometimes gets reduced when food is scarce (on islands and such). The problem with that is that it would necessarily apply to all animals, regardless of where they are, or how much food there is. Reduced body size would supposedly tend to stabilize a particular species most effectively. Of course, that would have led to diminutive dinosaurs, and elephants the size of grapes. Well, maybe not that small.I lean away from an externally automated process, though, unless the automator sticks around to watch the chaos and destruction. Otherwise, what would be the point in just leaving?No, really. I'm asking, what would be the point in leaving?Excellent post, BTW.

I believe there are far more detrimental effects of flourine to our systems, as well.Now, do you have any authentic evidence that this god is NOT driving the corruption you allude to?Help me out, here.

Yes, but what would trigger that ping???Let's play this out. And let's try not to be too hard on mankind.

Now Charley, if the god of the bible is driving this corruption, do you think the proof of that fact would be readily available, or would that god do everything in its power to lead you away from that realization and, in effect, support the proliferation of forums like this one, whose participants cling to ideas that could not be further from the truth, further from reality?You seem to be discreet enough to curb your desire for spreading truth, yet not quite discrete enough to make a difference in this world. I say, go with your gut feelings and do what you think is right. But, don't be so quick to abandon common sense... Why would the "God" of the bible allow the god of this world to drive that corruption? Do you know something I don't?

C'mon Doctor, is that the best you can do? Again, common sense. Why not say godzillions of years? There's no apparent purpose to inventing flippant scenarios. We're wasting posts now.Remember, the whole world is watching. And, so is this god.This god may strike you down for not giving it enough credit. For all you know there may be a sliver of nobility beneath all of the corruption. I personally doubt it. Yet, I must concede that I am not certain.Besides, my position is very clear. I am fully aware of what I have committed to. Not only am I unafraid, I call this god a coward where I stand!Now, the least you can do is entertain an interesting discussion, as if your life did not depend on it. Don't make me start this thread over again.What's up, Doc?

So, the almond industry is at or near the heart of the cancer cover-up...hmmm.I gotta start writing this stuff down.P.S. Who the hell is amygdalin? and why on earth would anyone spell that correctly?

Charley writes: I think you've hit the nail on the head. You've helped to precipitate the most relevant concern for all of us. And for that, I thank you, Charley. Now let me expand on your quote so that it may help you. I promise not to beat around the bush. Here's a little better taste of the truth...It is pretty clear to the astute that the god of this world favors the jews above and beyond all else. That much can be deduced by observing the three main godhead religions, and by making the simple determination as to what identity is, and always has been, in control of the vast majority of the world's wealth, education, power, media and political control. I, myself, admit that I do not know whether the jews are a strain or a breed or a race or a religion. So, I will be delicate enough to treat this as a racial issue, because that's what it boils down to, anyway. One thing is absolutely certain, for any reasonable purpose. The jews are not a separate species.Nevertheless, it would appear that the powers-that-be have been dilligently trying to exterminate other racial groups as briskly as possible. They have been doing this behind the scenes, under the scenes, on top of the scenes, through clever propaganda, through the false fronts of "charitable" organizations for the third world, and so on, and so on, and so on. Just open your eyes, if you doubt this at all.Now, with the idea that we are intelligently engineered to live shorter lives than what is possible, There is one painful conlusion that can be drawn. And, that is that this world is being carefully cleansed of what this god deems as impure strains of human.I will arbitrarily concede that I never owned this world, in the first place. But, I WILL ALSO make my case to the god that sits on the inside.Dear god, you stupid motherf#@ker, if you can't show that you love all humans, at the very least, then why the hell would anyone want to love you, you miserable sh!thead?Peace for now, Charley. And, thanks again.Limbosis