Replies

Quite simply one can state that a design is bad because the qualification for good design is NOT having gotten us to where we are. For example, why is there no security mechanism to protect against non-self mRNA? Why is the genome not encrypted and protected by other security measures enforced in the ribosomes? Were the human genome protected, then there would be no viruses and hundreds of millions would not have died.

For that matter, why should there be death at all.

The problem with your argument is that you can not know the intent of the designer, which, contrary to your assumptions, does not necessitate perfection...and even if it did, you simply have know way defining such a state. In short, and from our perspective, the state we are in right now is indistinguishable from perfection.

You raise an interesting point about death, which I will leave for another thread. However it is quite simple to know that the intent of the designer in creating a heart is to pump blood throughout the body to supply oxygen and remove CO2 from tissues. Do you disagree with that? It is also quite simple to state that eyes are for seeing. Do you agree with that? I will also state that taste buds are for tasting food. Can we agree on that or must we assume per your argument that it is impossible to know anything at all ever?

Please note that I do not require perfection. I am simply giving very specific examples of poor design. That > 50% of all pregnancies terminate because of developmental problems does not imply that I need to see 100% to agree that the design is "good".

I define good design the same way any other engineer might. And humans are not very well designed. Version 2.0 is on the drawing board now, and it will be a vast improvement over our current 0.9 model.

While you may be unable to distinguish man's current state from perfection right now, I suggest you spend a few weekends volunteering at the pediatric oncology ward of your nearest hospital. You will quickly learn to distinguish the human state from perfection.

jas3

You're basically reiterating what you previously said. I'm curious though why you seem to think that human suffering is the result of choices made by the designer, rather than the designed.

What is free will, if not a choice between consequences that lie in opposition to each other, and how can free exist if these consequences are not available to us.

What we do, and the choices we make, affect more than just the person...just as what our ancestors have done and the choices they made, affected more than just them....even as the choices you are making here, based on your propositions, Will affect more than just your own individual judgment.

"Humans will be designing our own cells in a few years, and they will borrow from nature, but will also VASTLY improve upon so called "intelligent" design."

"I define good design the same way any other engineer might. And humans are not very well designed. Version 2.0 is on the drawing board now, and it will be a vast improvement over our current 0.9 model."

Even though you have discounted my earlier statements, I must reiterate; "If we begin to design life from scratch and improve that life as you have said. That proves beyond a doubt that an Intelligent Designer(in human form) exists."

That being the case it is not far fetch to believe in the Intelligent Designer Version 1.0 no matter how critical we may be of his design, especially since we can look in the mirror and come face to face with the Intelligent Designer version 2.0