Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

“Incompetent Design” — to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic

Spread the love

Apparently the design was not so incompetent as to render these Darwinists incapable of composing (dare I say “designing”) this song and then performing it (yes, the performance is poor, but poor design is not the absence of design):

58 Replies to ““Incompetent Design” — to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Jason Rennie says:

    That was pretty awful. The real irony is that “incompetent design” is an assumption that they know why something was designed for a particular purpose.

    Consider DRM in media files. The website http://www.defectivebydesign.org/en/node speaks volumes as to that reality.

  3. 3
    Borne says:

    Where do they find inane drones like this?

    Please tell me people like this are not going to be allowed in the education system, or politics, or to roam the streets after dark.

    My question to them is, “What would you do with a brain if you had one?” (Dorothy to Scarecrow)

  4. 4
    Jehu says:

    Okay, I thought that was funny.

    However, the argument the song makes is wrong. It seems like they made three main arguments about bad design.

    1. Sore back Not everybody’s back hurts. If you get proper excercise and don’t sit on your butt all day making up “just-so” stories their backs would feel a lot better.

    Most sore backs do not cause a selective disadvantage, so why would healthy backs ever evolve in the first place? Why does anybody have a strong back?

    2. Crooked teeth Again, not everybody’s teeth are crooked. However, crooked teeth do not really provided a selective disadvantage, so why have some people managed to evolve perfect smiles when a crooked one will do?

    3. Blocked Sinus Almost half the population does not suffer from allergies. However, allergies appear to be on the rise and maybe a modern phenomena of unknown cause. You can be sure the that the original design did not include allergies. Finally, as with the other two, the real problem is for evolution. Why if allergies are not a selective disadvantage, does almost half of the population not have them?

    Taken in total, the evidence fits a well designed system in decay much better than an evolved system.

  5. 5
    kairos says:

    Very pathetic but quite instructive about NDE blindness. Certainly all those people did not consider that, although quite stupid, singing their song did require:

    1. some hundreds muscles working in perfect synchrony: arm muscles to hold the song sheet, eye muscles to correctly track words during reading and to correctly focus eye lenses, mouth and tongue muscles to correctly articulate all the (non-sense) words, etc. etc.

    2. many and many billion neurons used for reading words, correctly translate them into English phonemes (please don’t forget that English is a non-transparent language), correctly remember the right melody and to pass the right information to vocal muscles.

  6. 6
    dodgingcars says:

    “However, the argument the song makes is wrong. It seems like they made three main arguments about bad design.”

    Well there are more obvious flaws. 1) That a bad design means no designer. A poorly designed car is still designed.

    2) That there is no purpose or reason for a bad design (in Christianity, original sin as well as probably a means to humble man would be a good reason purposeful inperfection).

    3) That the design is truly bad. Are we sure that any seemingly bad designs are rely design flaws and not just a personal view that “it could be done better”

  7. 7
    dodgingcars says:

    that is.. “a good reason for purposeful inperfection.”

  8. 8
    Jason Rennie says:

    “That the design is truly bad. Are we sure that any seemingly bad designs are rely design flaws and not just a personal view that “it could be done better””

    This is ultimately where they fall down isn’t it. Hiding behind the assumption of “imperfect design” is an assumption that they are aware of any design trade offs and purposes for the design. If you are missing either than any comment on the imperfection of a design is simply wrong headed.

    Knowing the criteria is essential for knowing how good a design is. I wonder if they will provide one ?

  9. 9
    DAISHI says:

    How sadly pathethic.
    “What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!”
    -Hamlet; Shakespeare

    That we have to denigrate the human body in order to prove a point. What we once looked upon so admirably is little more than fodder for bad singing by a group of individuals who didn’t even know whether to cheer at the end of their song.

    There’s so much I could write as a response to this but it would amount to little more than a philosophical rant.

    My own world view, Biblical in nature, indicates to me a state of existence that has degraded since a Fall. But even that aside, even by these people’s perspectives, shouldn’t the human being be far more complex and wondrous than what we originated from?

    I can’t look at the human brain and not be impressed. But apparently, not everyone is.

  10. 10
    JGuy says:

    [Off Topic]
    Regarding the topic in the “Additional Descent” column titled:
    “Cells Use Zip Codes to Determine Their Body Location”

    I think, this leads to an interesting question for evolutionists – ie. How would a single celled organism evovle into a multicellular organisms where cells are differentiatated from the original “seed” cell. And still end up replicating the original cell that began the development of the organism? It would somehow need to output a copy of the original cell, undifferentiated from the prior cell (excluding the “information rich” mutations).

    JGuy–

  11. 11
    WormHerder says:

    Although I don’t think U2 are under any kind of threat; I wonder what selective advantage they have gained in ‘singing’ this ‘song’ ?

  12. 12
    mentok says:

    Once again the darwiniod choir (deafness would be a design advantage if their brave new world brings us more of that) shows what I have been saying for a while; evolutionary theory is being sustained and creaks on solely by incredulity. No amount of rational proof highlighting the illogical and impossible nature of evolutionary theory can dissuade evolutionists who are abolutely convinced that there is no possible way that a more advanced form of life then us, could possibly create us.

    Therefore they resort to sophmoric fallacious arguments which are essentially religious and philosophical statements of incredulity.

    Funny how they can spend time on religious critiques of ID yet refuse to take seriously the scientific challenges to evolution. Can they answer why,if humans evolved from apes, then why are apes better suited for survival in the wild? Sure having our brain power is better for survival, but we are weaker, we can’t subsist on the vegetation we find around us, we don’t have fur, etc. Think about it. If natural selection is guiding evolution then why did humans ever come into existence? At the first sign of having less fur wouldn’t that have heen a disadvantage and have been weeded out? Wouldn’t cold weather and sun exposure to our bodies (before there was clothes) make our furless bodies destined to be weeded out or never arise in the first place? How about a weaker body and limbs? Shouldn’t that have been weeded out? How about human teeth? If you were an ape wouldn’t human teeth and jaw strength have been weeded out if it started to evolve away from the stronger ape teeth and jaw? How about our digetive system? Apes can survive on stuff they scrounge around in the wild for, humans cannot. Which is better for survival? We could go on down the line with this type of reasoning, not just for the ape to human evolutionary scenario, but for countless other life forms as well.

    The question those people raise is a religious question or philosophical question: “Why can’t the designer make things better?” In fact what they complain about isn’t design flaw in general, it’s flaws that occur that are outside the norm. Instead of seeing human teeth as a wonder of engineering, they wonder why teeth are not perfectly shaped in each and every instance. Instead of wondering at the marvel of an apple tree with sweet apples, they will scowl at those apple trees which produce not so sweet apples and claim that as proof of no design. It’s more or less like a child’s temper tantrum which is thrown if the child can’t get candy whenever it wants. “If everything isn’t 100% perfect all of the time, then there cannot be an intelligence behind the design and cause of the variety of life” is their argument. If my mommy doesn’t let me have candy and soda pop whenever I want and let me do whatever I want, then mommy doesn’t exist anymore. Nevermind all the proof to the contrary that mommy exists, I refuse to acknowledge her existence if she doesn’t act the way I expect and demand her to act.

    I call their arguments sophmoric because they like to think the question they raise is some new and deep revelation, some profundity that has never crossed anyone’s minds previously. All of the great religions of the world have long histories and countless philosophical tracts from countless sages and saints and gurus on the question of the dual nature of our life on earth. We see the most beautiful and perfect things all around us, from healthy beautiful youthful human bodies, beautiful trees, stunning flowers, deliciously sweet fruits, wildely beautiful animals with astounding abilities, an amazingly beautiful perfect eco-system, all of it color coordinated for your viewing pleasure. Yet we also see human bodies that are not youthful nor healthy beauties. We can find disease and death and so many other things which are not what we would subjectively consider perfect. So we see a dichotomy here on earth, beauty and astounding perfection and the degradation of the same. This is not some new idea which a few evolutionists thought up of in their dorm rooms over pizza one beery night. For many christians the answer is original sin, for hindus it’s individual karmic reaction or justice, for many muslims and jews it’s believed that there is a purpose but that purpose is known only to god. all of these mainstream religions teach that the earth and life as we know it on earth, is an example of what the designer has to offer us if we can live up to our full potential. Life on earth or earth planets for us is seen as a place where we can advance our consciousness and mental state which can enable us to fit into a world without the defects we see around us. A realm where there is only the perfection of the natural world and the perfection that we can see in youthful healthy beautiful people, with none of the defects of old age, disease, violence, cruelty, natural disasters, etc. What the evolutionists are asking is “Why aren’t we in heaven?” The answer is that when you are ready, you will be.

  13. 13
    Avater says:

    They should have used “bad singing” as an example for “incompetent design” based on this performance.

  14. 14
    tribune7 says:

    I think we just won. We should throw a victory party.

    Anyway concerning “bad design”, these fellows are making a claim they can do better. Yet, cannot even approach desiging the things biological entities routinely do.

    IOW, these presumably highly credentialed types are conceding they are dumber than random chance.

    While, I’ll willingly confess to being dumber than the designer of life, I have far too much self-respect to say that random events can bring about order and beauty in such a superior fashion than my own thoughts and actions.

  15. 15
    bdelloid says:

    My thoughts from the other side…

    The point here is not that bad-design means no design.

    The point is that Darwinian Evolution has been able to explain poorly adaptive features. Most of the time, they arise out of the constraint of common descent. The appendix for example.

    ID, as far as I know, doesn’t any explanatory power for these poorly adaptive features.

    That, as I understand it, is the crux of the issue.

  16. 16
    Scott says:

    Evotardsâ„¢

  17. 17
    Fross says:

    our backs could be better, but it was obviously originally designed for a quadraped body plan. The same goes for our sinuses.
    Is it bad design to refurbish old designs? I don’t think so.

    Also, do our teeth not align because our jaws have decreased in size? Or is this another side effect of having gone bipedal?

  18. 18
    Jehu says:

    Fross,

    The idea our back and sinuses was designed for a quadraped body plan is a prime example of Darwninian stupidity. Sinus pain and sore backs come from damage to the design, not flaws in the design itself. The fact is, there is more perfection in the design of the human body than can be explained by selective pressure.

  19. 19
    DaveScot says:

    bdelloid

    So you know how the designer should design. That’s cool. Did the designer get like bad grades in design school or what? Do tell!

  20. 20
    Forthekids says:

    OT…

    I’m still having to page down quite a bit to get to the first post on your new site.

    Is anyone else having this problem?

  21. 21
    bFast says:

    Ops, that settles it, Intelligent Design theory, you are toast!

  22. 22
    Jehu says:

    bdelloid,

    If the appendix is vestigal, why does it get progressively larger from monkeys (who often don’t have an appendix) to apes to humans? As a prominate Darwinist web site states, “as one traverses the primate phylogenetic tree from monkeys to humans. … the size of the appendix increases”

    Also, claiming the appendix is vestigal or poorly adapted is an example of Darwinism as a science stopper. A recent article in Scientific American states

    “For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

    “Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.

    “In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix–like the tiny structures called Peyer’s patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract–takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual’s own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation.

    http://www.sciam.com/askexpert.....38;catID=3

  23. 23
    H.H. says:

    I’ve been wondering what purpose the appendix has…

    (off topic…)by the way, I’ve been told that the tail bone is just another left-over from when we supposedly had tails…(I’d don’t believe it of course) but what can you tell me about it?

  24. 24
    Avater says:

    bdelloid: “ID, as far as I know, doesn’t any explanatory power for these poorly adaptive features.”

    Why should ID explain poorly adaptive features or how they became poor if evolution does such a good job already? ID explains how those features arose and we can use evolution(in particularly RM) to explain how they got wrecked.

  25. 25
    Michaels7 says:

    The entire spoof is a double-entendre mock and scoff. They mock ID while scoffing at the Lord, with the additional dufusness of forgetting the very real sacrifices of people giving their lives freeing slaves.

    Takes real high IQ them thar Darwinians have that I just can’t get my poor pea brain around.

    ********************************
    Battle Hymn of the Republic

    Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
    He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
    He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
    His truth is marching on.

    (Chorus)
    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    His truth is marching on.

    I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
    They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
    I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
    His day is marching on.

    Chorus

    I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
    “As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
    Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
    Since God is marching on.”

    Chorus

    He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
    He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
    Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
    Our God is marching on.

    Chorus

    In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
    With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
    As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
    While God is marching on.

    Chorus

    He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
    He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
    So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
    Our God is marching on.

    ********************************
    Worthy words sung by worthy men and a timely reminder that from the time Christ gave his life, brother and sister have sacrificed for others they did not know to set them free.

    As opposed to the true Dawinist hymnal… (warning satire follows in the spirit of Monty Python)

    I’m a Darwinist and I’m Not OK,
    I worry all night and I fuss all day.
    I put on women’s clothing…

    To vist my psychologist in the morning. I wear high heels and shout out false warnings!

    Christians are like pedophiles I always say! If Darwinism dies, you’ll certainly rue the day!

    Cuzzz I’m a Darwinist and I’m Not OK. I worry all night and I fuss all day…

    What about them Catholics having more babies! Alll right, 10’s not enuf is it?

    Ohhhhh I’m a Darwinist and I’m Not OK. My sperms all lost and my wife’s turned gay!

    dink… diddly dink dum, do daaa~

    😉

  26. 26
    tribune7 says:

    bdelloid–The point is that Darwinian Evolution has been able to explain poorly adaptive features.

    Like the tonsils? Evolution says they are unnecessary so we remove them routinely then find out later they have a use.

    Thank you evolution.

    Anyway, I’ve become convinced there is nothing Darwinian Evolution can’t explain.

    Of course, so can I.

    The tricky part is being right.

  27. 27
    DaveScot says:

    Avater

    Why should ID explain poorly adaptive features or how they became poor if evolution does such a good job already? ID explains how those features arose and we can use evolution(in particularly RM) to explain how they got wrecked.

    Great answer!

    H.H.

    Function of the human appendix

    Tailbone serves as an attachment point for muscles and absorbs shocks when sitting down.

  28. 28
    Fross says:

    I’m just saying that the sinuses are designed to drain properly from a quadraped design. Our bipedal stance isn’t quite the perfect match for our sinuses. Our spine design (based on the quadraped design) is more prone to injury from a bipedal stance as well. Why would you call this Darwinian stupidity? I thought common descent could be accepted as part of ID.

  29. 29
    bFast says:

    Fross, “I thought common descent could be accepted as part of ID.” Many of us IDers totally accept common descent. Some don’t.

  30. 30
    trystero57 says:

    Jehu

    “Also, claiming the appendix is vestigal or poorly adapted is an example of Darwinism as a science stopper. A recent article in Scientific American states […]”

    There’s a gaping contradiction there!

  31. 31
    Jehu says:

    H.H.

    The tailbone? Left over from when humans had tails? That is a joke. Humans never had tails. As for the tailbone or coccyx as it is properly called, it is the base of your spine and where muscles attache that are used in defecation and childbirth.

  32. 32
    Jehu says:

    Fross,

    ’m just saying that the sinuses are designed to drain properly from a quadraped design. Our bipedal stance isn’t quite the perfect match for our sinuses.

    What? So if I get down on my hands and knees my sinuses will drain better?

    Our spine design (based on the quadraped design) is more prone to injury from a bipedal stance as well.

    Our spine is not based on a quadreped design. It is designed for bipedalism and it works great. I would like to see you come up with a better design. Any body part, no matter how well designed, is susceptible to injury if missused and stressed in an unnatural manner.

    Why would you call this Darwinian stupidity? I thought common descent could be accepted as part of ID.

    As far as I know, ID is compatible with common descent. However, most IDist I am aware of who accept common descent take a teleological perspective which does not require pretending that brilliant design is really just shoddy evolutionary adaptation.

  33. 33
    Jason Rennie says:

    I had an additional thought about this whole question of “poor design”. It seems increasingly the case that DNA is incredibly well designed. That there are layers of complexity in there that make in incredibly efficent and multifaceted.

    If this argument from bad design means there is no designer, then the incredibly good design in DNA is evidence for a designer.

    Although I doubt we can expect people in the Darwinist camp to be willing to be this intellectually honest or consistent. But what do you expect from religious fanatics. I wonder how long before they start suicide bombing churches ?

  34. 34
    Jehu says:

    Fross,

    Endurance runner Dean Karnazes has run 350 continuous miles, foregoing sleep for three nights, recently he ran 50 marathons in 50 days. I didn’t see him griping that his spine was deigned for quadrapedalism.

  35. 35
    Fross says:

    His dog could have done it faster 🙂

    I’m not saying that our spine is useless or even that it’s a “poor” design. It still has a few holdovers from being derived from a quadraped spine, but nothing that threatens reproductive success, so it’s really no biggie.

  36. 36
    mentok says:

    Fross wrote:

    ’m just saying that the sinuses are designed to drain properly from a quadraped design. Our bipedal stance isn’t quite the perfect match for our sinuses. Our spine design (based on the quadraped design) is more prone to injury from a bipedal stance as well.

    For the sake of argument let’s say you are right. What does that tell us about the theory of natural selection? If natural selection is guiding our evolution then why did we develop these disadvantages? Why didn’t natural selection weed out these disadvantageous mutations? Bipedalism is not as advantageous for survival as quadrupedalism. Quadrupads can move faster, it is more efficient, and easier. The difference between apes and humans is not something which can be explained by natural selection. The “missing link” has never been found for good reason. The quadruped body of an ape is efficient, any gradual change into a bidped would cause serious harm and be highly inefficient. There is the claim that australopithecus is the missing link, that it was part ape and pat human, that it was bipedal. But when investigated we find that the so called australopithecus remains are a human constuction from various sources from various times and that even the construction is easily shown not to be a part ape part human. This article from Brad Harrub (Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy) does a good job of exposing the fraud: http://www.answersingenesis.or.....wrence.asp

  37. 37
    Jehu says:

    Fross,

    His dog could have done it faster

    Dogs run fast than humans, so do Cheetahs. They also use four legs instead of two. However, I doubt a Cheetah could run 350 miles nonstop, and I am not aware of a dog running 350 continiuous miles either.

    I’m not saying that our spine is useless or even that it’s a “poor” design. It still has a few holdovers from being derived from a quadraped spine …

    Such as? Apparently you think you could do a superior job?

    Face it, the human spine may not be designed for sitting in an office all day, but it is great for bipedalism.

  38. 38
    Smidlee says:

    The irony is the Darwin “designed” theory of evolution was mostly wrong with all but one point. Since the Theory of Evolution has some many imperfection that it has to be correctly often it must be of poor design or exactly of no design. So does this mean those who singing this song are going to resign for science itself is far from imperfections.

  39. 39
    Smidlee says:

    correction… far from perfection.

  40. 40
    bdelloid says:

    Hi DS,

    The point is that, using a theory of ID, I have no idea how and why the designer designed things. Whether he wore a dunce cap or got summa cum laude in design school, I have no idea.

    But a Theory of Evolution does provide explantory power in understanding the existence poorly adaptive characters. Perhaps the tonsils or the appendix are not good examples. I find the birth process probably one of the most shocking, however. In primitive cultures, one can expect that many women die in child birth.

    A theory of common descent explains why this is the case.

  41. 41
    DaveScot says:

    bdelloid

    But a Theory of Evolution does provide explantory power in understanding the existence poorly adaptive characters.

    Right. No one has a problem with random mutation and natural selection working to undo an intelligent design. That’s just the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in action. It’s to be expected.

    Frankly it’s a bloody miracle that life still exists at all in the presence of random mutation and natural selection. It’s a clear testimony to the elegance of the initial front-loaded genome billions of years ago that it got life this far with so many obstacles in the way.

  42. 42
    shaner74 says:

    “The point is that, using a theory of ID, I have no idea how and why the designer designed things. Whether he wore a dunce cap or got summa cum laude in design school, I have no idea.”

    I just…I don’t understand what the hang-up is on the identity of the designer? How does not knowing who/what the designer is affect whether something is designed? Do we say, “well this is designed, but since I don’t know who did the designing, I will assume it’s not designed”??

    “Perhaps the tonsils or the appendix are not good examples.”

    I’ve noticed most of NDE’s “good examples” turn out to be not so good after all. You wind up picking and choosing to make a case against design. For example, criticizing the appendix while ignoring molecular machines.

  43. 43
    dacook says:

    The song reminds me of Dr. Sanford’s book on genetic entropy which I just finished reading a couple of days ago.
    Perhaps we develop arthritis, bad teeth, heart disease, and the multitude of other ills that afflict mankind because our genome has degenerated so far since it was created.
    Dr. Sanford makes a good case for the accumulation of deleterious mutations far outpacing any possible benefit from beneficial mutations over time.
    Darwinism actually works in reverse.
    The reason these guys have bad backs and teeth is that their DNA has accumulated so many errors over the generations since the code was first written.

  44. 44
    a5b01zerobone says:

    Hi everyone. Forgive me for sounding stupid but what effective responses do Design Theorists give to accusations of bad design?

  45. 45
    jb says:

    From #42: “I just…I don’t understand what the hang-up is on the identity of the designer…”

    I don’t get that either. I listened to a debate between Dr. Dembski and a Dr. Shapiro (Robert?–can’t remember the first name) on mp3 from a Veritas forum. Dr. Shapiro kept going on about how you have to say who the designer is in order for ID to be science. I remember thinking “huh? who made up THAT rule, and how did they come up with it?!”

  46. 46
    Atom says:

    @a5b01zerobone: all of the above.

    There is an article on Evolutionnews.org today about “dysteleology arguments” (why can’t penguins fly?)…

    From the article:
    “All of these arguments make two false assumptions: (1) that the designer must only make things which are pain-free and have no suboptimal features, and (2) that the design is indeed suboptimal. In short, all of these dysteleological arguments about pain or suboptimality are theological arguments which do not make a dent in the scientific theory of design. “

  47. 47
    jb says:

    (yes, it was Robert Shapiro — Guess I should have done my homework before posting: really it wasn’t THAT hard to go over to the Veritas web site and look it up, LOL)

  48. 48
    Atom says:

    BTW, it looks like you guys finally worked the kinks out of the site. I’m viewing it in IE right now and it looks PERFECT. I love the new look, so much more chic. (And the preview function now works terrific, no more white on white!)

  49. 49
    a5b01zerobone says:

    ID proposes that certain things in the universe are the result of intelligent cause(s), or mind(s).

    It is important that we be able to distinguish between the scientific concept of ID, and the philosophical and theological implications we draw from it.

    Now if we were to look at this from a Christian perspective. We would have to take The Fall int

  50. 50
    a5b01zerobone says:

    o consideration.

  51. 51
    Michaels7 says:

    Dacook,

    I remember there being an argument as well that deleterioius mutations are mounting at a pace that is unsustainable at current trends regarding a billions of year scenario.

    Regarding the spine, the hips, pelvic bones and the angles, they’re at optimum for both walking upright, standing and sitting positions.

    Anyone ever see a chimp ride a horse for long distances and rope a steer? another horse? a calf?

    When discussing materialist evolutionist opinions about “poor designs,” one does not need to look to hard for another evolutionary opinion of optimum evolution.

    For an article referenced in 2004 Nature:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo.....038;page=1

    “Evolutionary biologists have generally credited humans’ ability to run as an offshoot of our ability to walk on two feet.”

    The peroneus brevis tendon, …elongated tendons in the human body that the authors argue provides critical spring as a person runs. In apes and chimpanzees, the same tendons are much shorter, says Lieberman, and don’t offer the same kind of spring-loading action.

    Then there is the gluteus maximus — the unusually large muscle humans carry at their rear. Why such bulk in back? Lieberman says it’s for running and, again, this feature is less pronounced in our evolutionary ancestors.(gee evolution argues for both bad and good design – schizo)

    “When we walk, we barely use the gluteus maximus,” he said. “As soon as you start running, it plays a vital role to keep you from falling — it stabilizes your trunk.”

    Other features the authors list that help us run include the arches in our feet, which offer spring in our step, and broad surface areas of our joints, which help distribute the shock of impact from running — at least enough for ancient man, who didn’t run on pavement and who never lived much longer than 40 years.

    The upper body, meanwhile, carries its own made-for-running designs,(is this not hilarious, evolution arguing “made-for-running designs”) including wide shoulders — good for swinging arms from for balance as we stride — and lighter forearms that are easy to move back and forth. Even our heads are equipped for running, they say, as a large ligament stretching from our spines to the back of our heads acts to dampen the oscillation of our heads as we plod along.

    Finally, our ability to sweat is unmatched with our estimated 3 million sweat glands. Couple that with the fact that we aren’t very furry and you have a cool, running machine.

    Jogging for Supper

    Bernd Heinrich, a world record holder in the ultra marathon and biologist at the University of Vermont in Burlington, says the authors’ points make sense.

    “Most of us don’t do much running so it may not feel natural, but it feels natural to me,” he said. “Not much is new here, but I think they bring together a lot of evidence so it all fits into a pattern.”

    Only materialist evolutionist can both argue an optimal evolution and bad design at the same time.

    It is optimally evolved, but if designed it is bad.

    “You’d never beat a chimp in a 100-meter dash, but you could never get them to run a marathon,” he said. “And they wouldn’t like trying.”

    Because chimps were not designed to do so.

    Anyone hear of the Transcendent 3100? This athelete ran for 59 days:
    http://www.srichinmoyraces.org....._milovnik/

    Anyone remember the Race Across America events? Cyclist race almost non-stop, 22hrs/day for nine days to be in top competition for possible victory. A World famous, 3000 mile journey.
    http://www.raceacrossamerica.o.....?tabid=170

    Swimming marathons anyone?

    So, we’re designed well enough to run, swim, sit for hours, bike, hike, drive, fly and well…

    Hey humans can lift large weights too, up to 575lbs. But elephants can lift larger weights than us, so we’re not optimally designed.

    Yeah, imperfect design. ID does not have the answers. Evolution explains it all.

  52. 52
    Michaels7 says:

    Don’t drop that protein “baton”, could be an example of bad design.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....011607.php

  53. 53
    Jason Rennie says:

    “Hi everyone. Forgive me for sounding stupid but what effective responses do Design Theorists give to accusations of bad design?”

    I think the simplest response is to note that an accusation of bad design presupposes a complete understanding of the purpose something is put too. Lots of “sub-optimal” designs only look that way until you understand what the design actually aimed at.

    Look at DRM in music. Utterly suboptimal if your concern is freedom and ease of use of your music. Yet not so if you are a record company.

    Look at planned obselence is appliances so that consumes upgrade to the new model. Crappy design eh ? Not really.

    The entire argument hinges on understanding about the purpose of the design that those levelling the argument do not have.

    Not that I expect clear thinking from such people anymore. I have realised they don’t really care about evidence or reason or logic, they just care about attacking things that threaten a materialist worldview. They are religious fundamentalists of the worst sort. I wonder how soon they will start bombing churches ?

  54. 54
    tribune7 says:

    “Hi everyone. Forgive me for sounding stupid but what effective responses do Design Theorists give to accusations of bad design?”

    You can only know if the design is “bad” if you know the purpose of the designer. Think about this: A poorly designed fuse does not break. The perfectly designed one does.

  55. 55
    Jason Rennie says:

    “You can only know if the design is “bad” if you know the purpose of the designer. Think about this: A poorly designed fuse does not break. The perfectly designed one does.”

    Oh, that is a perfect example. I must remember that. Thanks.

  56. 56
    scordova says:

    Hi everyone. Forgive me for sounding stupid but what effective responses do Design Theorists give to accusations of bad design?

    That is the subject of an essay I intend to publish. In brief, would a Perfect Designer make something as perfect as himself?

    One can see this poses a truly interesting question!!!

  57. 57
    nickmanderson says:

    While their song may have been humorous, I don’t think it holds any intellectual weight.

    I think the biggest problem with their argument is that it assumes a static view of creation…that a designer created each individual creature, which never changes. But even the most ardent of creationists hold to a dynamic view of creation which allows micro-evolutionary changes within a species. Thus, their argument fails on this account alone and these supposed “flaws” are more evidence for the devolution of species.

  58. 58
    Fross says:

    I think calling something “bad design” is a very subjective thing. I think the point many people try to make (even though it may seem unreasonable to you guys) is that designs created by evolution are limited to using/modifying what was already there. For instance, whale fins are using modified hand bones, but they also work perfectly as a design for the whale. This isn’t a bad design, but it is a modified design vs. a redesign. Evolution is limited to modified design, and I think people don’t expect the workings of a designer to be limited to modified design. (vs design from the ground up)

    I think it’s a subjective opinion to say that something like boat that was built using nothing but the parts from a Volkswagon Bug is not as well designed as something like a ski boat that was designed from the start to be a boat. Both function well enough to be boats. It’s just that one shows signs of having once been useful for another function. The real point is that evolution is limited to the refurbished technique and ID makes no explanation as to why either technique should be expected.

Leave a Reply