|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,472 Year: 3,729/9,624 Month: 600/974 Week: 213/276 Day: 53/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4819 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think that you raise a very important point. If we look at living things, what we see is not Intelligent Design but rather Ignorant Design.
Another sure sign that living things were not designed by some designer is the fact that good ideas do not get replicated across all living things.
See this thread for a discussion of that aspect. Frankly, complexity and piss poor design, crap just barely good enough to get by is all that is seen when we look at living things. The human is a great example, overly complex. poorly designed, sloppy build, light of no QC or error correction built into the critter. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When a feature of the body has to have many functions working together to achieve the feature- and each functions design is complex in and of itself- and everything has to have an exact order or it won't work at all, I call that intelligent design. Actually that is an good description of Ignorant Design. Intelligent Design should be as simple as possible, with as many redundant systems as possible and as few possible areas for failure as possible. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The designs are NOT so much crap as representative of what can be done within the constraints. Well while I agree with everything in your post, I will stick with my assessment that what we see in living things is crap design. Let me try to explain. Biological critters must pass only one QC test, does it survive long enough to reproduce in the current environment. This is a very low design threshold, far lower than would be applied to any human created design. There is no need for it to excel in any area, only that it live long enough to pass on its genes. Even in your example of designing an automobile, there are restrictions on the designers. They cannot incorporate unknown technology, they cannot, as you point out, simply try lots of things to see what works, they must design something that could be built using the plants and equipment available. When we look though at living critters it is immediately obvious that there was no design oversight at all, certainly no Intelligent Oversight. Living things are simply not designed in anything like an intelligent manner. They are a collection of Rube Goldberg creations that are just barely good enough to work; not to work well, not to exceed some minimal specifications, but to just barely work. And if that isn't a definition of crap designs, I don't know what it is. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Welcome to EvC. We're glad that you joined us, but doing long cut & pastes from your blog is not really debating. If you want to make a comment and then provide a link over to your blog, even quote a piece of it, that's fine, but we don't really debate websites here, rather other individuals.
In addition, except for the words Intelligent and Design being included in your rhapsody, nothing in your tome is really related to the topic in this thread. The topic in this thread revolves around living things. If you look at living things, those things we can actually observe, do they appear to be a product of Intelligent Design? Any scientific model must explain the evidence available. If someone wants to support Intelligent Design, then their model must explain certain things like: Why most of the products of the designer are rejected as defective? Reproduction is extremely inefficient. Most reproduction attempts fail. The mother turtle lays hundreds of eggs, yet only a small fraction of those eggs which do hatch survive long enough to reproduce. Many Fish and Coral spawn by releasing clouds of eggs and sperm that simply float to the surface with the random chance that somehow an egg and sperm might drift together and merge. Plants broadcast seeds in the wind with no control over the conditions of the soil where they might land. In each of those examples, for the most part, reproduction is NOT directed and in most cases, reproduction fails. Even in the case of what some folk call the most advanced critter ever, humans, the norm is for reproduction to fail. It has only been very recently, in my lifetime as a matter of fact, that in a few developed countries things have changed to a situation where the norm is for a pregnancy to carry to full term, for the baby to be born without killing the mother in the process and for the baby to then live long enough to reproduce. In addition, those things only happened because the one example of an Intelligent Designer we know of, other humans, totally changed the "Natural and Normal" environment by inserting Intelligently Designed medical equipment, living conditions, instruments, pharmaceuticals and procedures. Why are examples of good designs not incorporated into other similar products? I discussed this in more detail in Message 8, but basically, why doesn't the designer use good ideas. If there is some Intelligent Designer, why doesn't he scarf the code for a great module and reuse that code wherever applicable? As a systems designer, a programmer, a website designer and as an ex-engineer, I know for a fact that I freely incorporate those features which I see, even if created by some other intelligent designer in what I produce. I try very hard not to continue producing sub-optimal products when I know there is a better solution available. That is NOT what we see when we look at living things. Human eyes are still built backwards even though we know there are better designs available. The human brain and intellect is not duplicated in other mammals. Shins still have no padding even though we are aware of the problem and as intelligent designers we can manufacture shin guards, elbow pads and shoulder pads. We still have a sharp cutting edge inside our skulls that is great for slicing up our brains on impact even though as intelligent designers we know to round sharp edges and add padding and restraints to protect things like brains. When we look at living things, what we see is not Intelligent Design, rather it is absolutely minimal design. The whole sum of design in living things is to mass produce vast quantities of a product so that even given the inefficiency of the design, a sufficient number of the products will pass the minimal QC barrier of natural selection long enough to reproduce more sub-par products. Edited by AdminQuetzal, : Off topic notification Edited by AdminQuetzal, : Re-opening post for response Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So how could this God be the source of any understanding or guidance. We don't know what it would preceive as being right/wrong or anything else. Heading way, way off topic, but since both the comment you are responding to as well as your argument seem to come up regularly, let me try to answer. The guidance we get from GOD is guidance meant to help us get along with others and to live life. The fact that we are not capable of understanding GOD is irrelevant. When it comes to guidance GOD speaks to us on our level, brings things way down to simple lessons even humans can understand. But those who argue that we cannot make judgments of GOD's competency by looking at critters are just looking for an easy copout. Of course we can make such judgments. If someone claims that the final products we call living things are the direct result of some Intelligent Designer, then it is absolutely right to judge the product in relation to the other intelligent designer we are aware of. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes: I admit I am an infant and consider it a great honor!!!!!!!!!!!! Actually, no you are not an infant, but rather a Blasphemer of the Holy Spirit and a member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Sorry, but them's the facts. You are really woefully ignorant which is pretty normal these days, but what is sad is that you also seem to be willfully ignorant, Ignorant by Design and Desire. You diminish the Christian GOD and have created your own version, turning the Christian God into an Incompetent Designer that you worship. That is, of course, your choice. Just do not try and pretend that you are worshiping the Christian GOD or that you are interested in truth. There are people here who are more than willing to help educate you, to try and help you work past the influences of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and towards a greater understanding of your Faith and of Christianity, but to do that, you must first be open to learning. That is a commitment that only you can make. As a fellow Christian, I hope that you will decide to stick around and to learn the truth. If you do so, you will find that this universe is a far more interesting place and that GOD is far larger, far grander than the picayune little tinkerer you now worship. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024