unintelligent design.

[LouisBooth]

"Atoms and their constituent nucleons & electrons didn't evolve by genetic evolution, so I can't be sure I would understand your question even if "specificity" was defined..."

This was in reference to people saying that God is a bad designer. Context of order of posts. The such small amount for "error" of variables in the physical world is mind boggling.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Of course.

And of course, no one really believes that God is bad designer. Only that the somatic systems of living things, interpreted under the light of design, show that design to be suboptimal. A motivation, if you will, to avoid that interpretation - lest we conclude a suboptimal Designer on account of it.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Only that the somatic systems of living things, interpreted under the light of design, show that design to be suboptimal"

Disagreed again. My body works quite well thanks. Funny how all systems seem to work pretty good together. Slight small changes kill off the body, like if hemoglobin formed just a little differently....

 

[seebs]

Sure, but there are lots of stable designs for things like hemoglobin... I do think there's some fairly questionable design decisions, but they're consistent with my expectations, so they don't really bug me.

If the choice were "this body, or you never get to see the world", I wouldn't have to think long to decide that this body is A-OK.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Sure, but there are lots of stable designs for things like hemoglobin"

Have you ever taken biochem? Just wondering. After I did it gave me a pretty confirming blow in favor of creationism. My teacher liked to twiek the processes and we had to say what happened. It was pretty showing that each one was setup a certain way for a certain reason, and it was clear to me the only way it could have happened was by design.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Disagreed again. My body works quite well thanks. Funny how all systems seem to work pretty good together. Slight small changes kill off the body, like if hemoglobin formed just a little differently....

The lists of "sub-optimal" "design" features goes on and on. They are not unique to the humans species, but I don't have to go further than my wisdom tooth extraction to confirm that.

It hasn't been a problem yet, but my urethra being routed right down the middle of my prostate is, well, potentially problematic. A more optimal design would have placed the prostate a little further toward the front to leave room for my plumbing.

Of course without interpreting this in light of "design" there need have no issue arise.

Oh, by the way - your biochem professor was surely doing her job by showing the intricacies of the human hemoglobin, but if you had been taking a comparative anatomy class and the topic of hemoglobin came up, you would have been introduced to numerous functional (but different) designs of hemo- and other -globins.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
I do think there's some fairly questionable design decisions, but they're consistent with my expectations, so they don't really bug me.

Too bad. If they bugged you enough, perhaps you would have dropped your improvements in G~d's suggestion box, and we wouldn't have to put up with such things today. So since you know better than G~d, but withheld your suggestions for a superior design, I think that means I can personally blame you for things like my tinitis, hypothyroid condition, etc. Where did I put the number of my lawyer....

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by npetreley
So since you know better than G~d

Totally off-topic, but could you kindly stop censoring the word "God"? Just because it's being taken out of the Pledge of Alliegance doesn't mean it's against the law to say it.

 

[Cantuar]

Have you ever taken biochem? Just wondering. After I did it gave me a pretty confirming blow in favor of creationism. My teacher liked to twiek the processes and we had to say what happened.

I took a few biochem courses and a lot of organic chemistry. I didn't see any need for creationism at all. The explanations of the chemical processes in terms of energy states and stoichiometry were right in line with the theories and you could calculate the outcomes if you knew the initial conditions. Just the laws of anture at work, no special miracles. Not saying that God wasn't responsible for the laws of nature, but never once did we have to resort to "you'd think it would do this, but it does that, and there's no explanation other than an act of God."

Complex organic molecules are not identical between species. Horse insulin and human insulin aren't the same - genetically engineered human insulin is better for humans than any sort of animal insulin, however much it's purified.

It was pretty showing that each one was setup a certain way for a certain reason, and it was clear to me the only way it could have happened was by design.

Which is the exact opposite conclusion I came to after the same sort of class.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ashibaka

Totally off-topic, but could you kindly stop censoring the word "God"? Just because it's being taken out of the Pledge of Alliegance doesn't mean it's against the law to say it.

It's not censorship. There are one or more people who participate in these forums who consider it inappropriate to name G~d directly (which is why you see the name of G~d represented as LORD -- small caps -- in many translations of the Bible). I am respecting that.

 

[Didaskomenos]

God never said his name was "God." That's English. There is a name he told Moses, and what we do is call him the LORD to keep from saying it all the time.

You know, I consider it inappropriate to make sarcastically offensive remarks about evolutionists. Will you please stop that, too?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
God never said his name was "God." That's English. There is a name he told Moses, and what we do is call him the LORD to keep from saying it all the time.

You know, I consider it inappropriate to make sarcastically offensive remarks about evolutionists. Will you please stop that, too?

No. I have a lot more respect for Christians than I do evolutionists. Which is why I honor their preference regarding G~d whether you or I happen to see it that way or not.

I endure many ridiculous and demeaning comments all the time. Doesn't bother me a bit. Get a thicker skin.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


No. I have a lot more respect for Christians than I do evolutionists.

Uhm. By implication, then, evolutionists can not be Christian? So you consider the two exclusive?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by ashibaka


Totally off-topic, but could you kindly stop censoring the word "God"? Just because it's being taken out of the Pledge of Alliegance doesn't mean it's against the law to say it.

 

I believe he picked it up after a Jewish Christian posted in this forum and was asked the same thing, my only guess as to why is that Nick feels it makes him holier and thus better than the rest of us.

I still use God since it is not His name and thus keeps in the spirit of the Hebrew dropping of letters to avoid misuse of His name.

God never said his name was "God." That's English. There is a name he told Moses, and what we do is call him the LORD to keep from saying it all the time.

Thanks Didaskomenos, yes, is is not His name at all. Infact it is originaly a german word, Got, used to refer to a higher being. The usage is even polytheistic in nature so if Nick realy wants make sure he is not offending the LORD he shouldn't even use it.


 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
It's not censorship. There are one or more people who participate in these forums who consider it inappropriate to name G~d directly (which is why you see the name of G~d represented as LORD -- small caps -- in many translations of the Bible). I am respecting that.

Funny how you show respect for one or two people's preference for the word "God", but then elsewhere on this forum you turn around and directly insult someone's reading ability.

Why the double standard? Is that part of your religion to treat some people kindly but not others?

 

[LouisBooth]

"The lists of "sub-optimal" "design" features goes on and on. "

Okay, keep it simple, give me something that can be taken out and not be missed or a change you think it would be okay to make. remember, biological changes also have a chemical effect.

 

[LouisBooth]

*mod hat on*

That is why we have the report button we can't be everywhere at once.

*mod hat off*

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Funny how you show respect for one or two people's preference for the word "God", but then elsewhere on this forum you turn around and directly insult someone's reading ability.

What, you mean like Rufus' criticism of someone using "their" instead of "there"? That kind of insult?

Look, you don't agree with the G~d thing. So what? Type it however you like.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

I believe he picked it up after a Jewish Christian posted in this forum and was asked the same thing, my only guess as to why is that Nick feels it makes him holier and thus better than the rest of us.

Wow, you pegged me right there. I thought I hid it better than that.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The lists of "sub-optimal" "design" features goes on and on. "

Okay, keep it simple, give me something that can be taken out and not be missed or a change you think it would be okay to make. remember, biological changes also have a chemical effect.

Ok. Wisdom Teeth. It would be better for humans if we didn't grow them. If I were a designer contracted to design humans, I could not justify the added expense of wisdom teeth when they rarely come in to serve any function, and if they do, they must often be surgically removed.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve. I would have a hard time justifying the extra material necessary to loop it around the aorta. That goes hextuple for giraffe design.

Pseudogenes. I would have left the vitamin C gene out, unless I felt my inventions would need vitamin C. Then I would have let it work.

Curvy backbone. When experimenting with the new "bipedal" gait, I might have kept the quadruped body plan while I worked out the ankles and knees. I would have re-engineered the vertebral column to accomodate bipedalism before I took my new bipedal models to market though.

Of course, I can't do any of this. I am not an all-powerful designer. Perhaps the all-powerful designer does look at design much differently than mere humans do. But if that is the case, arguments from design still fail. If the discipline of engineering and design is so radically different on the Omnipotent scale, then pretending to detect "design" in living beings without even knowing what "design" looks like is silly. If we do detect design, then we are detecting design that is often sub-optimal. Whatever was available that could be rigged to make it work. Between bats and birds, one of them has a better designed wing. Between dolphins and swordfish, one has a better fin.

A common designer hypothesis does not predict these design "flaws."

With special pleading, a common designer can be stretched to accomodate these flaws ("they are only flaws from our limited unknowing perspective")

Evolution predicts them and explains them elegantly and simply, with no special pleading. I hope you have read this whole thread. I hope you have read the thread started by choccy "evolution with no fossil record."