Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

Given these observations, what scientific evidence is there that there is one designer, vs. no designer or multiple designers?Creationists have spun off and disavowed intelligent design in an effort to "do science" but intelligent design leaves a lot of the scientific questions not only unanswered but unasked! (That's because they can't supply their real answers without giving away the whole sordid scheme.)ID talks about design, but by who/what? (We all know the answer they require, now don't we?)But if IDers were actually attempting to do science the question of how many designers there are/were would be an important one. But that's one question they dare not address because they know the designer is the Christian deity but can't admit it. That would blow their chances of sneaking ID into the schools under the false guise of science.(ID = creation "science" = creationism with the serial numbers filed off in hopes of fooling school boards and state legislators.)And to summarize the topic: Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?Answer: It is the IDers who are inept. They are pretending to do science while believing exactly the opposite of what science and the scientific method require.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In a similar thread I proposed that there was a designer for each species. The designing was done in a "Chinese Telegraph" type of system where each species was handed off to the next designer who then made a new species in complete isolation from other designers and other designs. Also, each designer is limited to about a 0.5% change in DNA. This is the only way I can see that a design scheme can produce the nested hierarchy that we see.In this scenario, the number of inept designers goes down. An inept design that is not immediately fixed will become standard in that design pathway so it only requires one inept designer out of every 20 or so. At the same time, if each designer is isolated they can not make changes that will take several "speciation" events to come to fruition. This means that a designer can not make a 0.5% DNA change towards a forward facing vertebrate eye if the total DNA change needed is 20%. They are trying to pound a square peg through a round hole. I agree.

They are trying to pound a square peg through a round peg.

---

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.

God did not intend to create you. So that you may sleep better, God didn't intend to create me or anyone else or even any species. Life, the start of it, looks quite intended.

I have no argument with this belief. I disagree, but that is OT for this thread.

ROFL! I am really glad I'm not the only one who feels that way in Church.I remember when I explained in Priesthood that I honestly felt I had never had witnessed any evidence that would bring me a knowledge of God's existence. You should have seen some of the brethren, they were all over themselves to explain their "privileged experiences".It's about that time that I realized that a surprising percentage of the brethren could be convincing themselves of these experiences, or just outright lying. Then again, it was my first time in a Utah ward...

I think it makes sense. I get the impression that everyone who wants to debate me doesn't want to give this idea the benefit of the doubt. I can see why people in the business world would want more perfection. Why should I keep debating these issues other than to learn about them? I could but I really don't have the time right now to debate the rest of you anyway. I would rather allocate it into learning and understanding the real issues such as understanding why eyes were designed (or evolved) the way they were, rather than taking the explanations of atheists (or even proponents of I.D.) as gold.I can't prove this but it is possible the verted retina of the vertebrate eye does a much better job in protecting it from radiation damage. Since many of those invertebrates live underwater, salt water tends to filter out radiation at the surface.I think you can pass judgment either way if your level of knowledge isn't up to the level needed to give the subject matter a fair judgment. It depends on how you wish to look at it either way based on whether you are an atheist or a theist. I believe this is rational but, it is a road many people don't wish to travel on.

If this were true then we would expect fish to have the same type of eye as squid, but they don't. Fish have the same inverted retina that terrestrial tetrapods have. That is why it is called the VERTEBRATE eye, the eye that evolved in the ancestral lineage of all vertebrates.And this adds another observation that you must explain. Why would a designer be forced to use the same eye for every animal that also has a backbone? Why is there this relationship between bones in the back and the eye? Wouldn't a designer be free to mix and match eyes and bones?

You should note that evolutionary biology has an explanation for the various oddities of "design" that are being discussed. You should then note that when you make up explanations they run into problems immediately. The acceptance of the evidence and logic of evolutionary biology is not split by whether one is an atheist or a theist. Only a small minority of theists don't accept that the explanations of biology are reasonable and very probably correct. E.g. Our eyes.You may say that you can look at it either way. But using your way you end up in a tangle that doesn't explain the available facts. Therefore one way is deficient in the extreme.

Hi, Drew. I think debating is the best way to learn.Everytime I come on EvC, I find people who completely disagree with me on just about everything I want to discuss. It's important to not limit yourself just to your own viewpoints, because relying on any single viewpoint automatically increased the likelihood of encountering the exact same errors repeatedly.Everybody has a few things that they just can't get through their heads, and it's important to have other people around to remind them of that.Anyway, I hope that wasn't a good-bye from you: I hope you'll stick around.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I repeated your quote, if you can prove to me that my point doesn't economically make sense, I would define that as a blow to my belief system.I'm not saying goodbye, I am taking a hiatus. Believe it or not, I don't have a home computer right now. It has a hardware problem for some time and I have been posting from a local library. The debates get a little bit discouraging because sometimes I feel like I am not in an actual debate but I feel more like I am in an argument with the characters from the cartoon series South Park. I'm a part of this series too. I go off on various tangents with these twists of humor.

Do they really? When I have more time you and I are going to have a debate on your forum.

Hi, Michamus.Sweet! Another Mormon at EvC!I did my tenure (a.k.a. sentence) in Utah to. Stuffy place, that.Welcome to EvC (I'm on Mormon Standard Time with my welcome here)!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Drew. Productivity generally follows a logarithmic curve: that means that, the more you go down one line, the more you have to work for each additional increment.For instance, during my undergrad, I analyzed samples of flies collected in traps. Let's say that an average trap catches about 8 species of flies. The first trap you place would then, expectedly, catch about 8 species of flies. The second trap you place would also catch about 8 species, but, some of these would be the same species collected by the first trap, so maybe 6 or 7 of them will be new.That means, after one trap, you're getting 8 species per trap, but, after two traps, you're only getting 7 or 7.5 species per trap.The third trap will have species that overlap with both the first and second, so you'll probably only get 5 or 6 new species there. Now, you're getting an average of 6.5 or 7 species per trap.Eventually, you're going to get to a point where you have to start putting out multiple traps in order to just get one new species. So, assuming there are exactly 50 species of flies in the area, you could catch 49 of them with maybe 100 traps {AbE: (numbers made up, but designed to be generous)}. But, in order to get the last species, you may have to put out an additional 50 traps.Does it really make economic sense to increase your workload by 50% in order to increase your results by 2%?Edited by Bluejay, : added disclaimer

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

It obviously has merit but, I am not sure how it would always apply to various methodologies of I.D.Another reason why I really don't continue on with my debate here is, it obviously upsets some people and I don't want to invade their privacy. I don't find it necessary to prove myself right. But let me tell you some of your atheists something. Be prepared to rethink your belief systems. I know things you don't know about.