too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

Mouth designs are some of the constraints Ned was talking about I think, but in the animal kingdom, outside of mammals, and probably within as well, mouths are not found on the 'front' necessarily at all. I have a pleco fish over here with a mouth that is decidedly on the bottom. I don't even know that a snake has a 'front' of his face.

I have a few questions/observations, and they are not indicative of any particular personal stance on ID, so no stereo typing allowed. First one; although the human body is 'sub-optimal' it is not necessarily true that we could ourselves conceive of a better 'design'. Only considering birth and brain size, what sort of improvements could you or anyone foresee in nature that would solve all problems, with no trade-offs? I know that is not a fair question, but we are coming from a position in many cases where IDists see the body as finished, and if it is not, there can be a continued advance in 'design' in ways that we intelligent beings can't even predict.So are we looking at 'best'? And if not, I will defend GDR a little, since he may not have been saying that he doesn't know what the anatomical functions of those particular flaws are, but he has not even realized he is asking why natural selection would have 'ended' there.In other words there may be an assumption that we are already viewing the best result of natural selection possible, rather than, to date. Hence the question 'why' did so many flaws get through? See? GDR may know the things you posted. They are fairly common knowledge items, but s/he isn't sure why nature selected imperfection rather than a 'better' design. It is another version of not understanding the big picture, or how it works entirely. And, if design ISCEEN, it is always assumed to be God doing the designing. God who is perfect, omniscient, powerful. There is in reality no reason to assume perfection in creation, maybe only 'goodness', as in the Bible.
There is likewise no reason to assume that God can't do better, didn't choose to, has elsewhere, or is still designing. I don't believe that the flaws and trade-offs in themselves rule out design, but only force us into a different view of the designer or its motivation. Biblically speaking, the body was already known to be flawed, and this was accounted for by the 'fall' etc...with no compromise to its 'designer' status.So, I am not promoting one view or another, but it is not quite relevent to talk of flaw as ruling out intelligent design. Maybe perfect design on behalf of the creative being is ruled out, maybe a perfect intelligence of the being is ruled out, maybe we are just how the being chose to make us. Maybe not. I just think there are more important ways to discover if we were designed than by making assumptions about God and how we think God should have done things. That is afterall very unscientific.

Ok, so you do not know what GDR was asking, and you are going to continue making the reverse argument from incredulity. You can't possibly imagine how a perfect God would make a flawed creature, so therefore one didn't? Still not logical because all gods need not be perfect or create perfectly.

I don't mean to be rude, but you keep saying you want answers, and in the same sentence being absolutely sure that the answers you haven't heard yet are impossible.

Well, technically even Biblical creationists acknowledge flawed humanity. It is not a given that the body is seen as perfect, just maybe more common.My only point was that using our own concept of God and His perfection is not proof of no design. Obviously there is no evidence of Designer, and that is not a problem. Logically however, flaw = no Designer is not correct.Someone mentioned pouches for human reproduction, like marsupials. I don't believe the rest of our body would support a pouch idea. I am still asking if anyone here would view the body we have as the best possible, or if they could think of intelligent improvements that would actually work. If evolution is not finished, we will see improvements eventually. Or at least adaptations. It is somewhat interesting that a non-intelligent process could produce results that intelligence can not foresee or control. In a certain perspective, what we do have is 'perfect' to the extent that we are the best possible set of trade-offs possible within our limitations.

First of all, it is still not a good argument, because if IDers say that the body is perfect and this proves God, they are laughed at. If evolutionists say the body is not perfect and this proves no God. it is also silly. Neither proves anything.Besides, it is not fair or true to say that a person must lower their expectations of God. It is quite possible that our own minds must change rather than God. In other words, what God is or is not capable of is beyond us. If we have our petty ideas about perfection, that is our fault. Most theists don't see God as limited to the body anyway. Claims of the miraculous are always greater than body, greater than creation. It is a roundabout way of admitting flaws in creation compared to the power of God. For the most part, the idea of a flawed humanity, physical or otherwise, is no real shocker to a theist. If we didn't see flaws, why all this nonsense about a new and glorious body, beyond corruption? Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, I don't think we can make a final judgement of God's competancy by looking at critters. The human body does not measure up to the standards we ascribe generally to some Designers. That is an issue that has been dealt with in religion already. What was not dealt with was the thought that there was no 'plan' for the flaws.The post you made about engineering and that experience goes a long way in explaining intelligent design to a new initiate, or at least getting them to think. Is is not without use to make these judgements, and I only responded to the reiteration of the idea flaw = no design because of the (perceived) feeling that this was being presented as something that would be a great stumbling block to ID. From the point of view of a recent 'convert' in creation views, there are simply too many ways around the issue to make it very significant.

Oh, oh, I have a question!Actually, how do scientists tell if something is vestigial, or still evolving into something functional?A penguin for example has a useful 'wing' but it's not useful for flight. Is it assumed that is no longer needs flight? That we no longer need tails, due to better balance?The tails is maybe more obvious. We don't need them now. But if all things are transitioning, they must be adapting to their environs. I am still a bit lost when it comes to adapting and extinction. I assume that some species are not adapting fast enough to meet sudden changes. So, when it comes to transitional features, I understand 'left-over' but not forward looking. Are there creatures which science considers to have useless parts that WILL serve a purpose rather than DID?THis is just a curiousity, if it is not on topic you needn't respond.

Karl? Thought the name was Rob. Oh well, my mistake.Actually it is shame when things get this way. IMO this topic never approached the ridicule stage, or the mud-slinging, of some of the others.I don't believe that IC was treated poorly, but I am surprised that people waft in here expecting to change the world. In all of history, even before modern science, ID was not the only conclusion of the public, and evolution is not the culprit. Regardless of whether or not it was ever noticed or theorized, it is unreasonable to expect that we all would C what he C's.

Well, thanks for 'in'-cluding me! I wonder why the quotations around IC's post anyway?And I didn't actually think it was Rob.