Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer such an idiot?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 3 of 50 (478088)
08-11-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-11-2008 7:19 AM


The Designer's Purpose
Hi, Cavediver.
The natural response from the religious is that the Designer's point wasn't to make an optimal Creation, but to make a creation that was suitable for testing His children for their eternal destinations. It seems natural that a suitable test would not include an optimal design, because there would be no challenge for us---not much of a test.
To me, of course, the sub-optimal condition of the physical body is simply a consequence of the Designer's Creation process---natural laws, including evolution. I'd say it's a truly brilliant Designer who can set things up so that they can build themselves and adapt to local conditions, even if the result is less than optimal. That's why I believe my Designer is superior to Buzsaw's and Beretta's.
{AbE: My theological beliefs strongly include (perhaps even revolve around) the concept of free agency, wherein each individual is allowed to make his or her own choices. I believe this extends---in some fashion---to everything else, too: God doesn't get too involved in things, but just lets them go at it on their own. That's why the universe seems to be built on principles of philosophical materialism.}
Edited by Bluejay, : Marked addition.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2008 7:19 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by cavediver, posted 08-12-2008 4:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 7 of 50 (478119)
08-12-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by cavediver
08-12-2008 4:06 AM


Re: The Designer's Purpose
Hi, Cavediver.
cavediver writes:
Possibly for some 'religious' this is true (I'm guessing Islam, your own Mormonism, etc.) but it is not mainstream Christian doctrine, where creation was good/perfect, and hardship is the result of the fall.
Yeah, I guess I didn't factor that in. Most Mormons would also believe in the good/perfect creation before the Fall, too. I don't really hold myself to a literal Fall story, but sometimes I pretend to in Church just so I won't offend any fundies (they might pressure the bishop to get me excommunicated if they found out).
I was trying to explain something like the following viewpoint (from Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect, message #54 ):
iano writes:
There's no point in examining his creation with a view to establishing one way or the other, whether what he did was perfect or not. To do that you'd have to know what his idea of perfect is - in order to measure his creation against it. Similarily, there is (logically) no way to decide for/against a creator based on perceived imperfections in his design.
If you had to take a educated guess, then I suppose it is safe to assume the being who designed a heart,lung or kidney is capable of making sure they are able to withstand the attack of diseases - or to make sure the diseases don't exist in the first place. But chose, for whatever reasons not to do so.
It’s a change of perspective about the word “perfect”: the creation doesn’t have to be “perfect”---as in, without flaws---it just has to be “perfect” for the task the creator had in mind for it, which was the grand test of this life.
This may go a fair distance toward understanding the Designer, too: obviously, the Designer didn’t make things without flaws or defects, so, assuming that He/She/It/They really is/are omnipotent, there must be a reason why He/She/It/They didn’t make things without flaw. If you assume that there is an omnipotent Designer, the lack of “flawlessness” in the design could be considered good evidence that this Designer is, in fact, a God that wants to test its creation through hardship. Of course, there would then be several other hypotheses to test.
-----
My case against the "perfect before the Fall" story goes like this:
In order for the human body to be optimal/perfect, you'd have to pretty much change it until it's unrecognizable, because the whole thing's a big wash.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by cavediver, posted 08-12-2008 4:06 AM cavediver has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 10 of 50 (478128)
08-12-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
08-12-2008 8:29 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Hi, Buzz.
Buzsaw writes:
So what do you do with the degree of mentality the wonderfully brain you have is blaspheme and complain that the designer has made you thus.
I think this is a little unfair. Cavediver is also making the best of his frail, human condition by using what little he has been given to try to understand the great mysteries of the universe. And, if the physical design of an organ is any indication of the Designer's intentions for it, that's pretty much exactly what God expects Cavediver to do with his brain.
I'm sure God (at least the God after the Christian tradition) is very proud of His children who are trying to transcend their mortal bounds by the limited means He gave them: wouldn't you be proud if your crippled son made the basketball team?

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 08-12-2008 8:29 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 21 of 50 (478156)
08-12-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rahvin
08-12-2008 11:12 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Hi, Rahvin.
Rahvin writes:
I'll say it very plainly, Buz: if the human body was specifically designed, the designer was on crack. An idiot. A fool. A complete and total moron.
I have to say that I really don't like this line of argument at all.
First off, all the human designers, engineers and scientists that have ever lived, put together, couldn't have created something like a human body with the tools we have available, so we at least know that, if there's a Designer, it's superior to the best we can muster on our own. I’ll let you decide on your own whether that means anything in particular, because I’m not sure what I think yet.
Second, even though I know it’s basically an untestable cop-out, I have to agree with Iano (whom I quoted above) that we just don’t know the mind of the Designer (assuming there is one), so it’s hard to place a judgment call on the Designer’s skills or reasoning. I just don’t think we can honestly, objectively say that the lack of physical perfection correlates with divineincompetence: there’s still too much we don’t know.
Now, if you’re talking about half-witted jackass idiots who insist that God loves us infinitely, has the ability to do absolutely anything that could ever be conceived, and whose only reason for creating us is so that we can live forever in a happy place where we’ll just be singing His praises non-stop for all eternity, then maybe I’ll retract my second point. But, if you’re willing to consider a God that follows a set system of rules and obligations, whose purpose is the continual growth and progress of beings below Him, then my second point stands: a God like that could have myriad reasons why physical imperfection is contrary to His plan.
To me, the Evangelical/Protestant views are nonsense, not because it relies on an intelligent designer to have created something that seems unintelligently designed, but because they insist that God designed a plan whereby a person must pass through this painful maze of physical life in order to get to a happy place because somebody else broke one of His rules long time ago, while also insisting that He is fully capable of just putting us in the happy place from the start. Not only is that unfair, but it seems completely pointless.
Assuming that there is a God, the fact that adversity is an integral part of this life is a sure indication to me that any afterlife is not going to be all happy and carefree: if it were, why would God be wasting His time teaching us things like patience, endurance and humility? Why not just give us a flawless body and let us live somewhere happy, beautiful and carefree now? If His love for us is real, why would He be hammering us so hard in this life if the hammering isn’t going to do any for us in the next life?
To me, any afterlife that there may be will still be life as we know it: work to do and problems to solve (allbeit, different work and different problems). That’s why God didn’t iron out all the flaws for us here: because we need to learn how to deal with them to prepare us for the life to come.
Sorry for the sermon. Feel free to ignore it if you’d like: it may not have contributed much to the topic, anyway.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 08-12-2008 11:12 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 08-12-2008 3:10 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 32 of 50 (478195)
08-12-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rahvin
08-12-2008 3:10 PM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Hi, Rahvin.
Rahvin writes:
Your approach is one of apologetics, where you begin with the conclusion (humanity was designed) and look for supporting evidence while either ignoring contradictory evidence or trying to "interpret" it in such a way that supports your premade conclusion.
I was under the impression that the point of this thread was to start with the assumption that we were designed and discuss what this implies about the Designer. If that's not correct, I apologize for my comments, because they clearly didn't meet the intent of the thread.
Rahvin writes:
The data we do have suggests that an intelligent designer would not design anything like the human body.
I don’t think we can make any inferences at all about what a Designer would do, unless we first make a judgment call as the intention of the design. For example, human designers made the game “MouseTrap,” which was intentionally given dozens of possible sources of failure as a mechanic of the game. That doesn’t mean the designers of that game were incompetent: any one of them could probably have designed a mouse trap that effectively catches mice, but they chose not to for the purposes of the game.
Your argument effectively states that optimal physical performance is the only possible purpose for design, and I don't see any reason why we should make that assumption.
Rahvin writes:
There are just too many obviously inefficient, harmful, or simply risky design features in the human body to say that it in any way coincides with an "intelligent" design.
But, this automatically rules out a lot of possible Designer psyches: for instance, a Designer that delights in seeing mortal beings come to harm would be fully consistent with these design features, and it wouldn’t have to be incompetent. Also, a Designer whose intention in giving us imperfection is to teach us how to take care of things (like our bodies) is also consistent with the given information.
On what basis do you exclude these explanations in your assessment of the Designer?
Rahvin writes:
We have not as yet designed a superior immune system to that of the human body...but most of our creations don't need to fight disease. We have not been able as yet to create a sentient being, but that's not the part in question.
I guess I would have to have added that "as yet" part to make my previous statements compatible with my personal beliefs, too. But (again, assuming that there is a Designer), the fact that the Designer could make eyes millions of years before we made a camera is a good indication that it is at least ahead of us. Percy brought up the fact that we still haven’t been able to make what the Designer assumably did make, which clearly indicates that we aren’t at the Designer’s level (yet).

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 08-12-2008 3:10 PM Rahvin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024