What can one "do" with design?

[Sabertooth]

You don't need ID for that.

But ID further re-enforces that.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:20,
"For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],..." Amplified Bible

 

[Nithavela]

What you can do with that? You can burn all your science books, abandon all need for progress and stare at the night sky with a vacant expression until you keel over.

 

[Nithavela]

I suggest you immediately get in touch with The Designer and point out that his design incorporates a number of serious design flaws causing premature death, disease and disability.

You should also recommend that he/she issue a universal defect notice and an immediate recall of all units for extensive upgrading or replacement.
OB

Don't forget to suggest fixing the bug where you open the fridge and forget what you wanted to eat.

 

[Nithavela]

He did. And He has a refurbishing program, if you contact Him before your warranty expires...

I don't know. He only accepts units for refurbishing once they are completely broken and doesn't return them, instead just claiming that they are working fine somewhere else.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't forget to suggest fixing the bug where you open the fridge and forget what you wanted to eat.

Indeed. Or entering a room and asking yourself what the heck you came in there for.
Or leaving your house, locking the door, taking 4 steps and then returning to the door to see if you locked it.

 

[jacknife]

If (big if) that were true, then the main thing to do would be to find out who designed you. The creator is always better than the creation.

What if the creator is a immoral monster using this world as a sort of video game for his amusement?

 

[DaisyDay]

The manual, every design has some sort of manual or instructions.

Well, again, that's not true. Many designs, maybe most, don't have manuals.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's say I decide to accept that all living things are the result of deliberate design. Now what? What can I do with that?

Now you are free to consider the infinite depth of purpose for everything. No more "mistakes".
- Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past -

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now you are free to consider the infinite depth of purpose for everything. No more "mistakes".
- Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past -

Hilarious list.
Nobody that still lives today and the vast majority from a time before Darwin.

As a funny contrast, here's a list of (still living) scientists that have no issues with evolution theory and who are all called "steve" or a variation thereof:

List of Steves

 

[SkyWriting]

Hilarious list.
Nobody that still lives today and the vast majority from a time before Darwin.

Yes, that's the most common response from critics.
There is a similar list of living scientists.
The difference being that this list covers
the founders modern science.

Darwin also made great advancements in observation
driven by his Christian training.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, that's the most common response from critics.

And a very valid one, at that.
Seems rather obvious that the further back in time you go, the more wrong things will be believed/accepted by even the brightest minds.

Newton was heavily into alchemy as well, for example.
Do you think he would still be into alchemy, if had lived in our age?

I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't.

There is a similar list of living scientists.

Dwarfed by the list of just "steve's".

The difference being that this list covers
the founders modern science.

Irrelevant.
Bright as those people might have been, they did not have the knowledge we have today.

Darwin also made great advancements in observation
driven by his Christian training.

Yet none of his scientific findings are dependend upon christianity.

The founders of astronomy, algebra, etc... were muslims during the golden age of islam. They also were driven by their islamic beliefs to explore and study the world.
But algebra, off course, isn't dependend on anything mentioned in the Quran.



The fact of the matter is, that religious beliefs of any and all scientists, do not matter AT ALL to their scientific work.

 

[Sabertooth]

C vs. E scientist lists have been done to death. This thread is about the ramifications of embracing an Intelligent Designer.

 

[Speedwell]

Now you are free to consider the infinite depth of purpose for everything. No more "mistakes".
- Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past -

I always gt a kick out of fake lists like that. This particular list is quite an old, compiled by Morris himself, I believe, and one time I went through and checked the religious beliefs of each individual. Not more than a handful were Evangelical Protestants, the basic qualification for being a creationist, and some of them had left-wing political leanings. Most of them belonged to Christian denominations which creationists despise as not "real" Christians. For example, quite a number of them were Anglicans. So am I, and when I lived in the Bible Belt I was regarded as a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie." That list, and all others like it, is nothing but pure, self-serving hypocrisy.

 

[pitabread]

I had presumed you meant all of creation, and by better than it I mean something along the lines of ability and power. If someone directly made and "organized" time and space to work in a specific way and no other way, then I'd say they are better (in ability or power, or other terms that may be more accurate there) than their creation.

I did specify "living things" in the OP. My hope was that people might actually suggest something useful with respect to biology, but so far it's all been an excuse to preach theology it seems...

Insofar as a creator being "better" than their creation, I'd say that that is not necessarily true. We've already seen examples of that in human design where things like genetic algorithms can result in output that can baffle their creators.

 

[SkyWriting]

I always gt a kick out of fake lists like that. This particular list is quite an old, compiled by Morris himself, I believe, and one time I went through and checked the religious beliefs of each individual. Not more than a handful were Evangelical Protestants, the basic qualification for being a creationist, and some of them had left-wing political leanings. Most of them belonged to Christian denominations which creationists despise as not "real" Christians. For example, quite a number of them were Anglicans. So am I, and when I lived in the Bible Belt I was regarded as a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie." That list, and all others like it, is nothing but pure, self-serving hypocrisy.

Not very pure if it does match your strange idea about creationists from the wrong side of the tracks.
Do you know the meaning of hypocrisy? Becasue a bungled list is not a good example of hypocrisy.
So by "fake list" you mean it's not an actual list?
So you'd like a more modern list of scientists from the past rather than an older list? I fail to see the logic of your complaint. Oh right...all complaining is valid becasue your feelings were hurt when you were a kid.

 

[Speedwell]

Not very pure if it does match your strange idea about creationists from the wrong side of the tracks.
Do you know the meaning of hypocrisy? Becasue a bungled list is not a good example of hypocrisy.
So by "fake list" you mean it's not an actual list?

Presenting a list of scientists as creationists when you would not even own those individuals as fellow Christians under other circumstances is, in fact, hypocrisy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Presenting a list of scientists as creationists when you would not even own those individuals as fellow Christians under other circumstances is, in fact, hypocrisy.

Creationists don't exclude others from being Christians, as a rule.
You might have run into such people, but it's a local problem for you.

 

[pitabread]

Now you are free to consider the infinite depth of purpose for everything.

That's it?

 

[Speedwell]

Not very pure if it does match your strange idea about creationists from the wrong side of the tracks.
Do you know the meaning of hypocrisy? Becasue a bungled list is not a good example of hypocrisy.
So by "fake list" you mean it's not an actual list?
So you'd like a more modern list of scientists from the past rather than an older list? I fail to see the logic of your complaint. Oh right...all complaining is valid becasue your feelings were hurt when you were a kid.

I don't see why a more modern list of creationists of the past would make any difference. The list would still include large numbers of non-creationist Christians and would be just as bogus.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "wrong side of the tracks" or getting my feelings hurt when I was a kid. I lived in the Bible Belt as an adult with a family. My kids were hassled by their teachers until I made it plain that they would regret it, and as I was a large fellow and known to own guns (despite being a "liberal n-word lover") it stopped. I wouldn't have tolerated, for example, the kind of behavior that was discovered during the Texas football game prayer case (Santa Fe School District v. Doe) that public school teachers were sending little Mormon and Catholic kids home in tears by telling them they belonged to godless cults. That case only got to the Supreme Court at all because a compromise offer for prayers to be occasionally said by members of other religious groups represented in the community was turned down flat.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't see why a more modern list of creationists of the past would make any difference. The list would still include large numbers of non-creationist Christians and would be just as bogus.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "wrong side of the tracks" or getting my feelings hurt when I was a kid. I lived in the Bible Belt as an adult with a family. My kids were hassled by their teachers until I made it plain that they would regret it, and as I was a large fellow and known to own guns (despite being a "liberal n-word lover") it stopped. I wouldn't have tolerated, for example, the kind of behavior that was discovered during the Texas football game prayer case (Santa Fe School District v. Doe) that public school teachers were sending little Mormon and Catholic kids home in tears by telling them they belonged to godless cults. That case only got to the Supreme Court at all because a compromise offer for prayers to be occasionally said by members of other religious groups represented in the community was turned down flat.

So now your predicting what an unseen list would look like, and denying it's validity.
Your conclusions are no better than the "godless cult" complaints you have against public school teachers. If you need a gun, then you don't have a good handle on persuasion techniques.