How does accepting design improve our understanding of biology?

[pitabread]

First of all, let's not play Arab phone.

You said DELIBERATE DESIGN.

Not INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

I don't want people mistaking me for supporting ID; which, in my opinion, is a tool of the Devil.

I'm using the terms interchangeably here. The point is that life was the result of some intelligent source deliberately designing and creating the original life on Earth.

Second, what you're asking is akin to saying:

"If I accept a dollar bill as something that is designed, how would that improve my understanding of money?"

The dollar bill is the template.

You can't improve on it.

But consider the template no longer in existence, so now you have to study a "flawed template."

A second (or third or fourth) generation template that is close to the original, but ... well ... flawed.

If you want to know what the original template looked like, study the template you have, then try and picture it much, Much, MUCH better than anything you've ever seen.

Our current template can fall 30 feet and be killed.

The original template could fall 30 miles and enjoy the trip.

So if I believe the originally created human being was basically Superman therefore this improves my understanding of biology? How exactly?

Not sure I'm following that one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure I'm following that one.

The point ... or one of them ... is that mankind started out perfect, then went downhill.

Whereas evolution says mankind started out flawed, and is improving.

 

[pitabread]

The point ... or one of them ... is that mankind started out perfect, then went downhill.

And how does this improve our understanding of biology? Give me a specific example.

Whereas evolution says mankind started out flawed, and is improving.

That's not what evolution "says" but that's neither here nor there.