A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

The overwhelming and overpowering observation in biology is the nested hierarchy. This is an observation that is independent of evolution. In fact, it was first noticed by a creationist named Linnaeus before Darwin was ever born.So if I were working backwards in order to describe the designer I would have no choice but to think that the designer (if it was a single designer) was suffering from a very serious case of amnesia. Why do I say this? Each change seen in the progression of life is completely uninformed by every other change out there. It's as if the designer is handed a species and asked to change in somehow. After doing so the designer's memory is wiped clean and the designer is handed a new species to modify. This is the ONLY way I can think of to explain the nested hierarchy as part of an intelligent design paradigm.To use specific examples, what was the designer thinking when the designer made bats and birds? Why not give bats some feathers? Why not give birds three middle ear bones so they could hear airborne vibrations a little better? Why not give birds teats so that they don't have to puke up food for their young? Why not give bats flow through lungs? Why not give birds the improved hemoglobin found in bats? Why are there two completely different and uninformed solutions to flight (not to mention flying fish, insects, gliding squirrels, etc.)?For a single designer, amnesia or Alzheimer's is the only explanation. The only other solution is a designer for each and every species, designers that are never allowed to talk to one another or share trade secrets.

The bill of the platypus is a perfect example of what I am talking about. An examination of the skeletal structure of both the duck and platypus bill leaves one obvious question, WHY ARE THEY SO DIFFERENT? The outer morphology is pretty close, but the skeletal structure underneath is completely different. As with all mammals, the platypus has a single dentary bone (i.e. lower jaw bone), and this dentary bone actually can produced cusped molars (i.e. mammalian teeth). Compare this to the duck bill that has three bones, just as in dinosaurs. The upper maxilla is split to form the span in the front and top of the bill for the platypus, a ver mammalian feature. In the duck there is no split in the upper maxilla. The nares are placed very differently also.It's as if the designer completely forgot about designing the duck when the designer was asked to form a shovel-like jaw for the platypus. It is exactly what we would expect to find if a designer suffering from amnesia was asked to design a shovel-like jaw from the mammalian jaw even after that same designer made the duck.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So why don't owls, who are nocturnal birds, have three middle ear bones or teats?

Or maybe they are the same and the designer is incompetent.

Another thought came to mind. Perhaps it was like a game of Chinese Telephone, the game where you whisper a sentence into the ear of the person next to you and the message is passed on to others. After 20 or so people the message has changed from the original. Perhaps this is how life was made, but instead of passing message on to one person you pass it on to two persons.

We don't have to know everything in order to know that the designer was incompetent.At the same time, this same "speck" can claim that it can detect the actions of supernatural deity by looking that how nature is put together.If we are adequately intelligent to detect design then we are also adequately intelligent to judge that design.

Do I have to know the blueprints of a Ford Pinto inside and out in order to know that it was a poor design? Nope. The fact that it explodes into a fireball on impact is all I need to know.The fact that my eating hole and breathing hole are one in the same is all I need to know that someone was asleep at the wheel. This is a design flaw. I can cite quite a few if you want.

If our purpose is to choke on our food and die then we are perfectly designed.

Specifically, the discovery that light travels at a specific speed led Einstein to formulate a theory to explain why light always travels at the same speed. This lead to his theory of special relativity (the "special" being the special case of constant velocity). It explained how spacetime changes with velocity.The general theory incorporated acceleration. Einstein found that gravity and acceleration were the same. He unified them. He explained how mass warps spacetime, and hence it changes the way in which electromagnetism propogates through spacetime.It all relates back to spacetime. That is the glue of the universe.

Designer.

If we were designed properly we would not be able to overdose on drugs in the first place. Why not have separate breathing and eating holes? That would be a better design. So the designer could have given us a perfect design, but chose not too so that we could suffer. That's what I suspected all along.

That's correct. That is the objective definition of perfect. Any and all actions do not have a bad outcome. It would seem rather obvious that a lack of energy resulting in us freezing to death would be a bad thing. Do you really think that we couldn't figure this out without freezing to death?

And you happen to have an objective definition?

Cars do not reproduce nor grow so they would fail those two requirements for life. It is certainly possible that man can make machines that will one day meet all of the requirements for life. Many a sci-fi author has tackled this problem, Asimov being a notable example. IMO, you could call these machines "life", but life that is different than our own.