Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

Hi, Traderdrew.When you reply to multiple people at once, it would be nice if you somehow made it apparent. You can make a "qs"-coded quote list the writer's name by writing "qs=writer's name" instead of just "qs" in the opening code. Biochemists are biologists.----- You question the objectivity of a guy who accepts a theory that directly conflicts with his personal belief system? Are you sure you know what "objectivity" means?Why would this cause you to question my objectivity, anyway? Because I'm only interested in working on theories that show promise? How does this make sense to you?----- Drew, this isn't a revelation to anybody. In fact, academic persons are so aware that their personal biases can impact their conclusions in undesirable ways, that they invented a method to lessen the effects. They called it, "the scientific method," or "science," for short.The entire point of science is to prevent personal opinions from dictating what is accepted as truth. Perfect objectivity is still beyond us, but the simple fact is that scientific thought is infinitely less prone to bias than is religious thought.----- I did not share my belief system with you, so I’m not sure how you were able to determine what it supports.----- The creator is, however, apparently interested in making the creation process look like the result of naturalistic processes such as evolution. This creator apparently does not want us to find out about It or Its power. Yet, strangely, in the Bible, this same Creator had no qualms about manifesting Its power through magic tricks and miracles.Why has It become so secretive of late, in your opinion?

---

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

Well I guess that settles it here then. I see a lot of that here. So just what does this victory over the deity/s of Young Earth Creationism get you anything more than personal satisfaction and self affirmation?

Nothing, given that those deities do not exist. It is merely an exercise in demonstrating the utterly flawed nature of the concept of Biblical YECism. The Universe around us bears no resemblence to the one described in YEC theology, even allowing for just about every possible consequence of the Fall. I repeat, was the ground much softer pre-Fall? Were cliffs quite a bit lower?

I think the link below clarifies what both of us are saying but I don't see how you can prove me wrong.Earth-Moon size and distanceThe sun is 400 times the Moon's diameter, and 400 times as far away. It is up to you if you want to view this as a coincidence or as a part of a design. This could be part of another topic. Does the arrangement of the solar system suggest design?

I don't think that flaws by themselves are evidence against evolution. I was wondering if some of you didn't factor flaws into the random mutation equation. However, I'm sure that science has worked it out in some way even though a group of advanced mathematicians don't agree with neo-Darwinism. No I didn't.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I had the impression that biochemists study the details of molecular machines at a lilliputian scale and biologists don't venture into that area.

I'm just making sure.

Well, I don't think the media would be willing or wish to explain acts of God as acts of God. I think they would be more compelled to investigate or report them as some sort of natural phenomenon. I am probably stretching your point to a certain degree. Maybe it has something to do with the age of grace that Christians speak about. However, supernatural stories from the old testament might be somewhat outside of the views I am formulating on metascience. I am thinking about NOMA. Non-overlapping magisteria. I would have to give it more thought.

Why don't you write a paper or a book and you can call it "Scientific Inaccuracies of the Bible"?

Sure you did. You called the mammalian eye an evolutionary dead end. It's not like there's any ambiguity, here's the entire exchange from your Message 296: For some reason or another, almost all discussions of creationism and ID end up discussing evolution, so let's get back to the thread's topic. If you really believe that the mammalian eye is flawed and an evolutionary dead end, but that it is the product of an intelligent designer, then doesn't that force you to the same conclusion as the thread's premise that the intelligent designer is inept?--Percy

Well, very roughly. The sun's diameter is close to 400 times the moon's, but this year the sun's distance from earth ranges from 362 times to 425 times the moon's distance. A few hundred million years ago it was more like 500 times as far. And no, the layout of the Solar system doesn't suggest anything like design to me. Observation and modeling suggest the opposite - they suggest gravity at work over 4.5 billion years, shuffling things around and scattering billions of protoplanets off into deep space or into the sun.

But I did. You said: Well it doesn't always do that since it moves relative to us.From your link:

quote:

---

When the Moon is at apogee, it is 11% farther from Earth than it is at perigee. This is far enough that it cannot entirely block the bright light, so eclipses which occur near apogee are not total.

---

This is what Bluecat made reference to. Why are you ignoring the fact that the Sun and moon both move and at times is about 400 times the distance, but at other times it's not?Are you now going to say it's designed to move? Let's say the moon being at that distance, (let's also pretend it doesn't move), is indicative of design, why would that make a case for the entire solar system?Do you know how many moons surround the other planets? None of them fit any little coincidental anomalies, doesn't that mean they aren't designed?Anyways, no, it does not looked designed. Nor could you point to anything that isn't confirmed to occur through natural causes.You see the reason many feel the designer is inept is, not because they are trying to insult said designer, but because nature is not perfect and what we see from nature is a struggle for survival in brutal conditions. The simple fact that things constantly adapt to changing environments, both on earth and stellar, indicates that life is progressively trying to perfect the situation it finds itself in for self preservation - and in the case of inorganic material the laws of physics maintain certain results that can be measured and predict further changes.If everything is designed then everything is not prefectly designed and constantly battles to survive because of that. So, either everything is a natural process of adaptation, or the designer is inept and can't seem to get it right.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Bold type added for emphasisYour statement, quotemined from the article, would only be true if the moon's orbit were circular and at the correct distance. Thus if there is a designer he is inept at least in the creation of the solar systemEdited by bluescat48, : missing [/qs]Edited by bluescat48, : sp & typo

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi, Drew. Yeah, perhaps that was a bit laconic of me: what I meant that message to convey to you as that, when somebody says, "something like 99% of all biologists accept evolution," the word "biologist" includes biochemists, physiologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, cellular biologists, geneticists, bioinformaticists, zoologists, botanists, malacologists, carcinologists, entomologists, myrmecologists, mycologists, ornithologists, herpetologists, etc.----- Have you seen the attention given to the likeness of the Virgin Mary in water stains, clouds and French toast? ----- Of course: if a certain method works on a regular basis, soon enough you'll have everybody out there trying to implement it.-----This is getting a little too far from the topic. I think I'm going to bow out here. It's been a pleasure debating with you. See you on other threads.

---

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

I don't see how you think I called the mammalian eye a dead end when first of all, I didn't write all of that post and second of all, that was Tag's post saying that there was no evolutionary way to correct the inherent flaw. Tag didn't state that it was an evolutionary dead end.You guys are making me think so I thought that I would create a question that makes you evolutionists think.That is OK. This is not the first time that I have had the impression that some of you guys are grasping for straws. Anyway, you and cavediver asked for it so here it goes:Perfection is a subjective term that has applications in various fields such as physics and mathematics. We have an idea of how perfect a performance should unfold according to our immediate perceptions. How does the term perfect apply to machines? What is a perfect machine? Can you define its capabilities? Once limits are established someone will raise the bar ad infidium arguing that if the machine or process is perfect then it is surely capable of more. Where would this stop?The idea that the creator should’ve or would’ve created perfect systems overlooks the possibility of multiple motives and the possibility that perfection wouldn’t serve at least one of those motives. It may also not consider some possible theological ramifications that we may or may not understand.Why does the creator have to design perfect systems? Why not design adequate systems that get the job done??? Is there any sense in overdoing it?Have you ever considered that the creator didn’t want to provide absolute proof of an existence to people? Why? The act of proving an existence would force people into making decisions in light of consequences. If you could prove that a God exists then that would force certain individuals into making decisions they really don’t want too. Perhaps by hiding his (I will assume the creator has the image of a man) existence it ensures that certain ramifications would unfold in the future.Perhaps the creator hid the fingerprints of design because our creator wasn’t interested in our intellectual abilities. Perhaps the creator is more interested in the essence of who we are and that is who we are as expressed out of our hearts.If there was a perfect physical utopia, would people grow and/or learn wisdom? Perhaps the best way to learn wisdom is to live through an experience where it is learned and I would argue that this would arise out of an imperfect world.

Who is asking for perfect? We're asking for competent. If someone invents a typewriter and doesn't bother to include vowels or punctuation marks would you be questioning his greater purpose or his competence? Or are vowels and punctuation marks overdoing it? So, your God is limited in His abilities. He's a tiny god who has to work with what he's given. Inept, as it were. Given your inside scoop with god it's not surprising you make the argument for ineptitude better then an atheist ever could. But he couldn't hide them from you, could he, you clever, little minx? What are all those wise African babies learning before they starve to death that's so valuable?Edited by lyx2no, : Imperfect punctuation.

---

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.

Evolution does adequate systems just fine--that's its specialty, in fact.If your creator also does adequate systems, how are you going to tell the difference between the two? Or that there even is a "creator" at all?

---

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