Why is the Intelligent Designer such an idiot?

I'm sorry, did you seriously just title this post "unappreciative blasphemy?" Too bad the "master designer" didn't see fit to equip me with a decent set of eyes, like eagle eyes or octopus eyes. Hell, I'd even settle for normal 20/20 human vision. Without corrective lenses, I literally can't see past my own nose. Apparently I was "specially Created" with an inbuilt flaw.Note that octopi don't have this problem. Their more flexible lens structure means they can adjust their lens by themselves, without glasses. That'd be a really neat design feature. Too bad the "designer" left it out of his supposed crowning achievement.It'd also be nice to have a redundant heart. Sure, it increases necessary caloric intake, but hear attacks wouldn't be such a big deal any more with a little redundancy.How about not using the same tube for eating and breathing? I gotta say, any engineer who designed that today, leaving the obvious flaw of being able to choke simply by eating, would be fired.And what the hell is up with this appendix thing? Why do I need to have a vestigial organ that serves no purpose other than to acquire a life-threatening infection? Why'd this all-knowing designer include that? Not our fault there's a lot to complain about. Seriously, while certain parts of the human body are truly spectacular, even those bits contain engineering flaws that no intelligent designer would ever implement. Unless he was drunk, or playing a practical joke on his creations.I mean, if I were to create a sentient robot, the last thing I'm going to do is give it optical sensors that are warped so that it needs to wear additional lenses to see straight, or leave a bunch of circuit boards in the housing that don't perform any function but have a tendency to short out and cause a fire, or use the same jack for AC input as for lubricant intake.Those sorts of things would be stupid when normal lenses exist and simple intelligent design technique eliminates the other flaws. I doubt it - they don't grow back. Maybe if I were a reptile and could grow them back, I'd appreciate an intelligent design choice. I doubt it. Again, their poor design means they won't grow back, and in fact most people experience wearing-out of joints in the form of arthritis or various problems with the cartilage. Maybe if those inherent design flaws weren't present, I'd be more appreciative. Well, I am "blurry-visioned." Those of us with an IQ above freezing call it "nearsightedness" or "myopic vision," but that's okay, Buz. We understand that an idiot would certainly find the inherent design flaws of the human eye, with its lack of focusing ability, the ease with which the retina can be detached, and the many birth defects that can cause blindness or imperfect vision to be "miraculously intelligent." Perhaps if the designer had included something like the nictitating membrane of reptiles so that we wouldn't need to be concerned with getting foreign substances in our eyes or lack of lubrication. As it is, those aren't very intelligent designs either. Not really. But I'd definitely appreciate the addition of wings and the musculature to use them. Such a shame the intelligent designer gave us such imperfect memories, isn't it? I mean, the computer I'm using right now has a basically perfect memory. If I worked off of a flash drive, I wouldn't even have to worry about moving parts failure. Why couldn't the intelligent designer give us memories like that? I wouldn't have needed to spend so many hours studying in school! Surely the "intelligent designer" could come up with a better method than our forgetful brains!
Perhaps if your body suddenly lost the ability to coagulate blood, you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed. I'll say it very plainly, Buz: if the human body was specifically designed, the designer was on crack. An idiot. A fool. A complete and total moron. There is no "glory" in giving the so-called pinnacle of your creation inherant flaws that most of the "lesser" creatures you made don't themselves posses. Anyone who thinks my eyes, the ones that can't even recognize my own mother at four paces, are "intelligently designed" when birds of prey can see clearly for miles and octopi can self-correct for the sort of lens flaws that plague me is a moron. Anyone who thinks using the same tube for breathing and eating is an example of "masterful" design is an idiot.Your Jehova is an incompetent boob if we are the result of his direct and special creation.The only thing impressive about the human body in terms of design is that it actually works at all. The only miracle is that we haven't all developed cancer, don't all have vision problems or appendicitis, and don't all have birth defects resulting from the inherantly flawed DNA replication cycle.

Only partially true. We have not as yet designed a superior immune system to that of the human body...but most of our creations don't need to fight disease. We have not been able as yet to create a sentient being, but that's not the part in question. The useless and even outright harmful vestigial organs like the appendix or wisdom teeth, the parts prone to malfunction or deformity like the eyes, and the silly design where even a little forethought would have resulted in a more survivable organism like the breathing/eating tube, all are examples that we can and have improved on nature. A modern digital camera off the shelf at Best Buy is superior to the human eye. That is a cop-out, so I'm not even sure why you're mentioning it. The "god has a plan" or "you cant understand the motivations of the divine" arguments are idiotic and always have been. It falls into the "we don't know everything, so we can't know anything" category. The data we do have suggests that an intelligent designer would not design anything like the human body. There are just too many obviously inefficient, harmful, or simply risky design features in the human body to say that it in any way coincides with an "intelligent" design.That said, all of my arguments apply only to Creationist "made from mud" scenarios, not any scenario in which a deity simply allowed humanity to evolve through natural processes. Our own experimentation with evolutionary design has shown that, left to its own devices, the evolutionary process can come up with some outlandish results that still work very well, even if they are inefficient. It is entirely possible that a deity orchestrated the processes of nature with perfect precognition to result in the eventual evolution of humanity. But those like Buz who believe that human beings were specially Created, not evolved, must also believe that human beings were designed exactly as they are. We have many examples of features in other parts of the animal kingdom that work better than their analogues in humans, and so there is no conceivable reason for a designer to not give humanity eyes that function like an octopus, or remove that appendix that becomes so risky when left in. Well, yes, those would be some of those I'm talking about. I'm sure you can conceive of a "reason" to have a third thumb jutting from the back of your head if you allow that its purpose is to encourage "growth through hardship." But that only works when assuming the existence of an incomprehensible deity - it is not in any way evidence of design. From all objective analysis, that third thumb would be an idiotic addition from an engineering standpoint, which means that the evidence we do have points to any such designer being a moron.You can't use "any explanation I can pull out of my imagination" to bypass the fact that many of the features of the human body simply don't make sense from a design standpoint. Your approach is one of apologetics, where you begin with the conclusion (humanity was designed) and look for supporting evidence while either ignoring contradictory evidence or trying to "interpret" it in such a way that supports your premade conclusion. That's not a valid method of investigation. That's a theological argument, and I'm not going to address it very far. All I'll mention is that you just claimed above that the deity's motives may be completely incomprehensible to "mere humans," and this represents an inconsistency in your argument. Frankly, though, I could care less about theological arguments - all I care about is the objective evidence we have of the human body itself, and that evidence is not suggestive of an intelligent designer. Really, it all boils down to apologetics. None of this involves following evidence to conclusions, but rather using predetermined conclusions to shape our interpretation of evidence. I could just as easily make up such "explanations" by assuming that a malevolent unicorn created the world as an exercise in torturing humanity like a child with ants, and that those parts of us that do work or give us pleasure were intended only to make our misery all the greater when our flawed bodies fail us.