Replies

I think you still misunderstand my point. In fact, you further underscore my point.

You seem to be trying to use evolution to disprove the existence of God.

That is 100% inaccurate. I have said nothing whatsoever about the existence of God. I can't imagine how or why you would mutate my assertion that if there is a designer that he is not very good into a different assertion that there is no God.

You say that you never said there was no creator, but you also seem to think you know what "creators" are like by your opinions on what constitutes design or good design or intelligent design. Where do you get this information/knowledge?

It is quite simply to define rules for "good" and "bad" design. The rules are not different from the rules that you might use to evaluate an automobile. You might ask yourself: Is it reliable? What parts will break and when? How much does it cost to maintain? Does it do it's intended job well? Perhaps you might want to redefine the job of the human urethra from emptying the bladder into the job of causing male suffering. In that case you might very well conclude that the urethra is well designed. But in that case it is still not the optimal design to cause suffering. I don't need to know anything about the creator of my car to know that it is or is not well designed. Likewise, I don't need to know that when a child is born with ambiguous genitalia requiring a genetic test to determine the sex of that baby, that that child was not designed well. There are thousands of errors in human development and genetic disorders which are "mistakes". This is why the MAJORITY of pregnancies terminate naturally prior to birth. I contend that no automaker would be considered to be rendering a good design if more than half of its vehicles had to be scrapped on the assembly line. Likewise, I need not know anything about the creator of humans to know that if he chose the current design, he made and continues to make very very many mistakes.

How is it scientific to claim truths about the nature of a creator?

It is scientific to make observations of nature and to report them. If an architect's buildings failed at a 50% rate prior to completion, one might well conclude that he was not doing a good job based on higher standards that could easily be accomplished. Likewise, if God has chosen to design humans at the genetic level, he makes many many mistakes, which humans have already begun correcting.

Where does one go for scientific experiments on the types of creators?

If you accept the assumption that the creator is an Intelligent Designer, than your first stop should be the neonatal care unit of your local teaching hospital. Another stop might be the pediatric oncology ward.

You observe soemthing you find inefficient, and then decide that proves there is no intelligent design, or that the creator has certain qualities/limitations.

I observe something that I find inefficient and conclude that the designer did not do a good job. That is correct. For example the oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells is quite poor. There are already replacement red blood cells being engineered that would allow humans to hold their breath underwater for 30 minutes or more. That is an IMPROVEMENT to a good design. I saw a little girl with spina bifida who had her urethra routed out her belly button to allow easier catheterization so that she would not die of kidney failure before her 10th birthday. That is an improvement on poor design.

How do you prove this scientifically without having the same/superior knowledge as the creator?

It is quite simple to state that the urethra is not optimally place for draining the bladder in men, just as it is simple to state putting the steering wheel in your car on the floor of the vehicle is not optimal for driving a car. Granted one does need to accept that the purpose of the urethra is to help man urinate. If the purpose is to torture old men, then it is adequately but still not optimally placed.

You are merely projecting your own beliefs (dare I say feelings, hunches, urges?) onto this flawed/limited creator idea you are willing to allow.

I strongly disagree. It is quite simple to see what specific body parts are designed for and even sometimes to correct them when they function improperly due to congenital deformities. To suggest that the deformity is part of the design is to redefine the word design. One could argue that a rock is an excellent design of a car using your refusal to define what intelligent design means.

I would submit that you simply are using evolutionary theory as a metaphysical statement about you own beliefs. I don't think you do it intentionally, but are blind to it by your emotions and beliefs.

Sadly that is not the case. I wish I could get emotional about anything, but alas I cannot. I can certainly understand what most people mean when they use the words "intelligent" and "design". I have merely argued that the human form is not very intelligently designed and is fraught with design problems. I find it hard to believe you can't accept this. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with medicine.

The fact is that evolution is not scientific either if it only leads to metaphysical conclusions that are, themselves, the beliefs being proven.

That point is completely irrelevant to mine. I'm not arguing for evolution. I don't claim to have any knowledge as to where man came from. I am only stating that however man was created....it was a lousy job.

Evolution is about God, not about evolution. Think about it. Read all of the evolutionary giants. They all make pronouncements about God. Why? I submit it is because they are using evolution, not for scientific, but for metaphysical (dare I say religious?) purposes. THey are trying to deal with the problem of evil and evolution is their theodicy, their theory about why "bad things happen to good people."

Still irrelevant to my assertion that man is not intelligently designed. Perhaps God is a bad designer. Why is that so hard to accept?

I know you will chafe at this assertion, but please, then define evolution without reference to the metaphysical.

I have not brought up evolution even once.

Purely scientific discussion does not require a belief, but somehow evolution does, and is still scientific?

Still irrelevant and off topic.

It is a real problem that the evolutionists need to confront. Their logic is flawed, probably fatally.

So go find an evolutionist and have it out with him. I am not promoting evloution. Once again I am only stating that homo sapien is inadequately designed.

By the way, I manage hundreds of scientists and engineers and I also do not buy the notion that the universe is bilions of years old, or that evolution is proven or that there are any transitional forms or homolgies that are conclusive or dating techniques that are without serious flaws, or any of the conventional wisdom. I see lots of problems with the "science" behind theose assertions. I believe that Truth and Reality are to be sought and discerned, not that conventional wisdom should be upheld for its own sake. I may be wrong, but I know I am right or wrong, one or the other. I am not confused about that in the least.

Off topic; still irrelevant.

What say you? Do you believe in trying not to believe?

I don't understand what either question has to do with my assertion that the urethra is poorly designed.

jas3