Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:35 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, ringo (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer such an idiot?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1 of 50 (478034)
08-11-2008 7:19 AM


He's either an idiot, or for a deity, remarkably hard-up when it comes to paying for design plans. He uses the same basic body plan for fish, quadrupeds, bipeds, birds, etc. Why should us bipeds have to put up with a skeletel structure that designed for walking on all fours? Did God force us into second-hand body-plans post-fall, just so that we could enjoy the delights of back-pain?

Why do we have sub-optimal eye design, especially compared to the octopus? Why do we have such stupid "programming" restrictions in the articulation of our arms? Did we not itch in that impossible-to-reach spot on our backs, pre-fall? Why are our genitals so exposed to damage?

Why do we hurt, damage and even kill ourselves when we fall over? Was the ground softer pre-fall? Why do our bones break, limbs dislocate, etc? Why do we need to eat? Why do we need to breathe?

If you can point out to me the guy responsible for all of this, I will not bow down and worship... I will laugh becasue he has made one hell of a joke. As an exercise in what physical laws can produce, the human life is a stroke of genius. As an exanmple of what a deity can spontaneously 'create', it's pathetic...

(Misc Topics in C/E)

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2008 7:53 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 4 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2008 9:16 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 13 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-12-2008 11:49 AM cavediver has responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 50 (478086)
08-11-2008 7:41 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 3 of 50 (478088)
08-11-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-11-2008 7:19 AM


The Designer's Purpose
Hi, Cavediver.

The natural response from the religious is that the Designer's point wasn't to make an optimal Creation, but to make a creation that was suitable for testing His children for their eternal destinations. It seems natural that a suitable test would not include an optimal design, because there would be no challenge for us---not much of a test.

To me, of course, the sub-optimal condition of the physical body is simply a consequence of the Designer's Creation process---natural laws, including evolution. I'd say it's a truly brilliant Designer who can set things up so that they can build themselves and adapt to local conditions, even if the result is less than optimal. That's why I believe my Designer is superior to Buzsaw's and Beretta's. :)

{AbE: My theological beliefs strongly include (perhaps even revolve around) the concept of free agency, wherein each individual is allowed to make his or her own choices. I believe this extends---in some fashion---to everything else, too: God doesn't get too involved in things, but just lets them go at it on their own. That's why the universe seems to be built on principles of philosophical materialism.}

Edited by Bluejay, : Marked addition.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2008 7:19 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by cavediver, posted 08-12-2008 4:06 AM Blue Jay has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 4 of 50 (478091)
08-11-2008 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-11-2008 7:19 AM


Omphalism ( devious designers yet again).
cavediver writes:

He's either an idiot, or for a deity, remarkably hard-up when it comes to paying for design plans.

Or, he's trying to make it look as though something like modern evolutionary theory is close to the explanation of the origin of the species we see around us.

I favour the "devious designers" explanation when we're examining the character of the Intelligent Designer(s), because it automatically fits all the evidence like a glove.

So, if I'm right, the real question would be: Why do the Intelligent Designers try and conceal themselves? (The plural is because polytheism would appear to be almost infinitely more likely than monotheism once we take away our cultural bias).

Apart from the suggestion of laissez-faire designers who merely design nature, something like Bluejay suggests above(only plural, to remove cultural prejudice :)), there would appear to be nothing else that would fit the evidence, except, of course, the parsimonious "no designers" solution, the obvious default position unless or until we have positive evidence for the existence of such beings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2008 7:19 AM cavediver has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 5 of 50 (478107)
08-12-2008 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Blue Jay
08-11-2008 7:53 PM


Re: The Designer's Purpose
Hi Bluejay,

The natural response from the religious is that the Designer's point wasn't to make an optimal Creation, but to make a creation that was suitable for testing His children for their eternal destinations.

Possibly for some 'religious' this is true (I'm guessing Islam, your own Mormonism, etc.) but it is not mainstream Christian doctrine, where creation was good/perfect, and hardship is the result of the fall.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2008 7:53 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2008 8:48 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 50 (478115)
08-12-2008 8:29 AM


Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Cavediver, you're the ultimate unappreciative blasphemer who possesses all of the abilities, functions and bodily facilities to do all that the supreme designer, majesty of the universe has equipped you with.

So what do you do with the degree of mentality the wonderfully brain you have is blaspheme and complain that the designer has made you thus.

Perhaps if you suddenly lost all your fingernails or your fingers, you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.
Then perhaps if after loosing your fingers you lost your elbows or the cartilage in your elbows you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.
Perhaps if you suddenly became colorblind, blurry visioned, or blind you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.
Perhaps if you suddenly lost the ability to produce tears or lost your eye lashes and then the eyelids, you'd learn to appreciate the way you are designed.
Perhaps if you suddenly lost all of your toes, then the legs which allow you to crawl, walk, run, jump, climb, etc you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.
Perhaps if you suddenly lost the ability of recall in your brain, you'd learn to appreciate the way you are designed.
Perhaps if your body suddenly lost the ability to coagulate blood, you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.

These are just a few of the masterfully designed properties of body and mind which I praise, honor, glorify and thank Jehovah, creator, for. Praise God from whom all blessings flow!


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 08-12-2008 9:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 9 by subbie, posted 08-12-2008 9:10 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2008 10:56 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 08-12-2008 11:12 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2008 11:47 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 7 of 50 (478119)
08-12-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by cavediver
08-12-2008 4:06 AM


Re: The Designer's Purpose
Hi, Cavediver.

cavediver writes:

Possibly for some 'religious' this is true (I'm guessing Islam, your own Mormonism, etc.) but it is not mainstream Christian doctrine, where creation was good/perfect, and hardship is the result of the fall.

Yeah, I guess I didn't factor that in. Most Mormons would also believe in the good/perfect creation before the Fall, too. I don't really hold myself to a literal Fall story, but sometimes I pretend to in Church just so I won't offend any fundies (they might pressure the bishop to get me excommunicated if they found out).

I was trying to explain something like the following viewpoint (from Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect, message #54 ):

iano writes:

There's no point in examining his creation with a view to establishing one way or the other, whether what he did was perfect or not. To do that you'd have to know what his idea of perfect is - in order to measure his creation against it. Similarily, there is (logically) no way to decide for/against a creator based on perceived imperfections in his design.

If you had to take a educated guess, then I suppose it is safe to assume the being who designed a heart,lung or kidney is capable of making sure they are able to withstand the attack of diseases - or to make sure the diseases don't exist in the first place. But chose, for whatever reasons not to do so.

It’s a change of perspective about the word “perfect”: the creation doesn’t have to be “perfect”---as in, without flaws---it just has to be “perfect” for the task the creator had in mind for it, which was the grand test of this life.

This may go a fair distance toward understanding the Designer, too: obviously, the Designer didn’t make things without flaws or defects, so, assuming that He/She/It/They really is/are omnipotent, there must be a reason why He/She/It/They didn’t make things without flaw. If you assume that there is an omnipotent Designer, the lack of “flawlessness” in the design could be considered good evidence that this Designer is, in fact, a God that wants to test its creation through hardship. Of course, there would then be several other hypotheses to test.

-----

My case against the "perfect before the Fall" story goes like this:

In order for the human body to be optimal/perfect, you'd have to pretty much change it until it's unrecognizable, because the whole thing's a big wash.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by cavediver, posted 08-12-2008 4:06 AM cavediver has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 8 of 50 (478120)
08-12-2008 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
08-12-2008 8:29 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Perhaps if you suddenly lost all your fingernails or your fingers

If I were the designer, it wouldn't be possible to lose fingernails, nor have those ever so delicate fingers break so damn easily.

Then perhaps if after loosing your fingers you lost your elbows or the cartilage in your elbows

If I were the designer, you wouldn't have joints with such a pathetic mumber of degrees of freedom. And they certainly wouldn't need to use cartilage.

Perhaps if you suddenly became colorblind, blurry visioned, or blind

If I were the designer, there would be no such things as blurry vision, colourblindness, nor indeed blindness. And your eyes would see a damn site better than they do now, and would have a much greater range of frequency reception.

Perhaps if you suddenly lost the ability to produce tears or lost your eye lashes and then the eyelids

If I were the designer, you wouldn't need any of those protection mechanisms we have for our appallingly delicate eyes.

Perhaps if you suddenly lost all of your toes, then the legs

Why the hell can I not fly??? If I were the designer, you would be soaring with the birds. The designer has taunted us with that one for millenia.

Perhaps if you suddenly lost the ability of recall in your brain

To some extent, I already have. And it pisses me off. If I were the designer, you would never need worry about such things, nor any degenerative affliction.

Perhaps if your body suddenly lost the ability to coagulate blood

And if I were the designer, you would never have the need for your blood to coagulate. Actually, you wouldn't need blood.

These are just a few of the masterfully designed properties of body and mind which I praise, honor, glorify and thank Jehovah, creator, for

And these are just a few of the areas where I could do a hell of a lot better. Unless, that is, I was constrained within a physical/evolutionary framework...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2008 8:29 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 9 of 50 (478123)
08-12-2008 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
08-12-2008 8:29 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Buz, what you said basically boils down to:

I can't disagree with anything you say about how bad our bodies are designed, but Praise God He didn't do any worse!

Not exactly James Herriot.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2008 8:29 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 10 of 50 (478128)
08-12-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
08-12-2008 8:29 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Hi, Buzz.

Buzsaw writes:

So what do you do with the degree of mentality the wonderfully brain you have is blaspheme and complain that the designer has made you thus.

I think this is a little unfair. Cavediver is also making the best of his frail, human condition by using what little he has been given to try to understand the great mysteries of the universe. And, if the physical design of an organ is any indication of the Designer's intentions for it, that's pretty much exactly what God expects Cavediver to do with his brain.

I'm sure God (at least the God after the Christian tradition) is very proud of His children who are trying to transcend their mortal bounds by the limited means He gave them: wouldn't you be proud if your crippled son made the basketball team?


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2008 8:29 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 11 of 50 (478132)
08-12-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
08-12-2008 8:29 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
I'm sorry, did you seriously just title this post "unappreciative blasphemy?"

Cavediver, you're the ultimate unappreciative blasphemer who possesses all of the abilities, functions and bodily facilities to do all that the supreme designer, majesty of the universe has equipped you with.

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?

So what do you do with the degree of mentality the wonderfully brain you have is blaspheme and complain that the designer has made you thus.

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.

Perhaps if you suddenly lost all your fingernails or your fingers, you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.

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.

Then perhaps if after loosing your fingers you lost your elbows or the cartilage in your elbows you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.

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.

Perhaps if you suddenly became colorblind, blurry visioned, or blind you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.

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 you suddenly lost the ability to produce tears or lost your eye lashes and then the eyelids, you'd learn to appreciate the way you are designed.

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.

Perhaps if you suddenly lost all of your toes, then the legs which allow you to crawl, walk, run, jump, climb, etc you'd begin to appreciate the way you are designed.

Not really. But I'd definitely appreciate the addition of wings and the musculature to use them.

Perhaps if you suddenly lost the ability of recall in your brain, you'd learn to appreciate the way you are designed.

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.

These are just a few of the masterfully designed properties of body and mind which I praise, honor, glorify and thank Jehovah, creator, for. Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2008 8:29 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2008 11:51 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2008 12:25 PM Rahvin has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 12 of 50 (478134)
08-12-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
08-12-2008 8:29 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
    Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated out of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing -- with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for second and third place.

    Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2008 8:29 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 50 (478137)
08-12-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-11-2008 7:19 AM


If I was an Intelligent Designer and could make a living thinking person with the ability to be ungrateful, recalcitrant and blasphemous, I'd probably also give him the gift of self determination.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2008 7:19 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 08-12-2008 12:00 PM LucyTheApe has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 14 of 50 (478138)
08-12-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rahvin
08-12-2008 11:12 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
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 lets not bring up sex, and some of the design flaws there.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 08-12-2008 11:12 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 15 of 50 (478142)
08-12-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by LucyTheApe
08-12-2008 11:49 AM


If I was an Intelligent Designer and could make a living thinking person with the ability to be ungrateful, recalcitrant and blasphemous, I'd probably also give him the gift of self determination.

And if I were an Intelligent Designer and could make a living thinking person, I'd make such a good job of it that they would not choose to be ungrateful, recalcitrant and blasphemous :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-12-2008 11:49 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2008 12:08 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 19 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-12-2008 12:13 PM cavediver has responded

1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019