Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

---

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

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.

You forgot to say Amen after your statement.I say this because your statement is pure religious dogma (in the Science Forum no less), and it is without a single shred of scientific evidence to back it up. In fact, it is contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence.Note tagline...

---

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

---

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

When it involves other life forms, that's no excuse for doing shoddy work.I still like Heinlein's vision of all of this as expressed in his book Job: A Comedy of Justice, 1984.

---

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

There is no evidence for either ID or for anything supernatural.

---

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

Judging from posts I have seen spanning several years, when one is doing creation "science" rather than real science, these little details don't matter.It is the witnessing or some such that counts, not the accuracy of the statement.In that, it is the exact opposite of real science. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add off-topic banner.

---

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

It makes a lot more sense viewed from the evolutionary standpoint. As does everything else so far.

---

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

Your's is not the only designer. And there is just as much evidence for the designer in the following Central California Indian creation story as any other (i.e., none):The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

​

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.

---

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

No, I did not make that up. That is a Native American creation story collected in Central California about 1908-1910.There are hundreds more such stories from throughout the country, and probably thousands more from throughout the world. All have about the same evidence supporting them (i.e., none).

---

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

The pain mechanism should have told you that by itself. There is no dimmer switch! Talk about a Rube Goldberg device.You talk about breathing and eating with the same tube? How about routing half of waste disposal system through the pleasure centers? Freshman in shop class would be flunked for that one. Creation "science" as usual.

---

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

Morality? Its just a bunch of "designer" stories cooked up by the shamans to keep their peasants in line so that they can retain their special position in society. Its a worldwide phenomenon. The Native Americans had their own stories, but at least they didn't create an arbitrary and capricious deity.In spite of all the stories, and all the believers, so far, there is no evidence for any designer whatsoever.Heinlein had this one right:

Edited by Coyote, : spelling

---

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

Coyote is more the trickster than the vengeful all-powerful deity. And as in the cartoons, his tricks often backfire on him.I think he's the type you'd rather have a beer with though.

---

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

Random? Who said anything about random?Here is an on-line lecture that deals with this subject. It is titled Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell.Researchchannel.org

Pay particular attention to the "robustness" of the systems he is describing.By the way, this same lecture also puts to rest those computer models that "prove" evolution is impossible because the odds are too high. They make the same mistake with "random" and thus are modeling the systems incorrectly.

---

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

Are you here to explore the scientific evidence, or are you here as an apologist who will defend belief in spite of the lack of evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence?If the latter, that's fine, but just don't call it science. Its the exact opposite of science.

---

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