Welcome to EvC. We're glad that you joined us, but doing long cut & pastes from your blog is not really debating. If you want to make a comment and then provide a link over to your blog, even quote a piece of it, that's fine, but we don't really debate websites here, rather other individuals.
In addition, except for the words Intelligent and Design being included in your rhapsody, nothing in your tome is really related to the topic in this thread.
The topic in this thread revolves around living things. If you look at living things, those things we can actually observe, do they appear to be a product of Intelligent Design?
Any scientific model must explain the evidence available. If someone wants to support Intelligent Design, then their model must explain certain things like:
Why most of the products of the designer are rejected as defective?
Reproduction is extremely inefficient. Most reproduction attempts fail. The mother turtle lays hundreds of eggs, yet only a small fraction of those eggs which do hatch survive long enough to reproduce. Many Fish and Coral spawn by releasing clouds of eggs and sperm that simply float to the surface with the random chance that somehow an egg and sperm might drift together and merge. Plants broadcast seeds in the wind with no control over the conditions of the soil where they might land.
In each of those examples, for the most part, reproduction is NOT directed and in most cases, reproduction fails.
Even in the case of what some folk call the most advanced critter ever, humans, the norm is for reproduction to fail. It has only been very recently, in my lifetime as a matter of fact, that in a few developed countries things have changed to a situation where the norm is for a pregnancy to carry to full term, for the baby to be born without killing the mother in the process and for the baby to then live long enough to reproduce. In addition, those things only happened because the one example of an Intelligent Designer we know of, other humans, totally changed the "Natural and Normal" environment by inserting Intelligently Designed medical equipment, living conditions, instruments, pharmaceuticals and procedures.
Why are examples of good designs not incorporated into other similar products?
I discussed this in more detail in
Message 8, but basically, why doesn't the designer use good ideas. If there is some Intelligent Designer, why doesn't he scarf the code for a great module and reuse that code wherever applicable?
As a systems designer, a programmer, a website designer and as an ex-engineer, I know for a fact that I freely incorporate those features which I see,
even if created by some other intelligent designer in what I produce. I try very hard not to continue producing sub-optimal products when I know there is a better solution available.
That is NOT what we see when we look at living things. Human eyes are still built backwards even though we know there are better designs available. The human brain and intellect is not duplicated in other mammals. Shins still have no padding even though we are aware of the problem and as intelligent designers we can manufacture shin guards, elbow pads and shoulder pads. We still have a sharp cutting edge inside our skulls that is great for slicing up our brains on impact even though as intelligent designers we know to round sharp edges and add padding and restraints to protect things like brains.
When we look at living things, what we see is not Intelligent Design, rather it is absolutely minimal design. The whole sum of design in living things is to mass produce vast quantities of a product so that even given the inefficiency of the design, a sufficient number of the products will pass the minimal QC barrier of natural selection long enough to reproduce more sub-par products.
Edited by AdminQuetzal, : Off topic notification
Edited by AdminQuetzal, : Re-opening post for response
Aslan is not a
Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2
