Human evolution Intelligent Design

Nathan Lents argues that the human eye refutes design

Spread the love

Readers may remember Nathan Lents, author of Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes. In 2015, he was holding forth about the poor design of the human eye: “The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product.”

Perhaps thinking that that assertion does not quite make sense, Cornelius Hunter responds:

For Lents’s “junk design” argument is too good. He correctly points out very significant problems with what is probably the most important human sense; at least insofar as evolution is concerned. Vision is crucial in evolution’s calculus of reproductive fitness. Even Lents admits his own vision would have rendered him an evolutionary loser. Such problems, as Lents eagerly points out, are both significant and common. Lents thinks he has refuted design, but in fact this terrible human vision system never would have survived evolution’s ruthless natural selection filter. Its very existence refutes evolution.

Lents has made a powerful argument against evolution rather than intelligent design, for evolutionary theory predicts no such failure would survive evolutionary history. This certainly is a strange way to formulate an argument against intelligent design. How is it that Lents concludes evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory refutes design?

We have already seen, above, the answer to this question. It lies in Lents’s view of what an intelligent designer would and would not do. Lents concludes this “bad design” evidence refutes design because he believes an intelligent designer would not allow for a vision system that has the problems Lents describes.

Simply put, Lents’s argument entails an assumption about the designer. This brings us to the second problem with his argument — it is not based on empirical science, but rather on metaphysics. There is no scientific experiment one could perform to test Lents’s claim because it is not scientific in the first place. Instead, it is based on theological utilitarianism, a metaphysical position on which ID is agnostic, but evolution requires.

Cornelius Hunter, “Did Nathan Lents Refute Design?” at Evolution News (January 21, 2022)

Well, if we want to get theological about it, Moses was a man slow of speech. Why didn’t the Lord, who had chosen him to free the people, make him eloquent? (Or cure his speech impediment, if that’s what it was.) All we know is, he did free the people anyway. The trouble is, as Hunter notes above, trying to figure out what God should or should not do, apart from the record, is not science.

From the science record, the human eye is very well adapted to what it needs to do.

Incidentally, Lents believes that he would have failed as a (Palaeolithic?) hunter, due to poor eyesight and therefore the eye is poorly designed. There’s another way of looking at it: Problems like that spurred the development of agriculture. Agriculture does not need everyone to have the strength and skills of a hunter. Plenty of people can plant and harvest grain and grind it in a mill. Overall, the human race is probably better off with a mix of strengths and weaknesses, for creativity and innovation.

53 Replies to “Nathan Lents argues that the human eye refutes design

  1. 1
    doubter says:

    Lents’ argument reveals the common severe failing of most biologists in that they have no actual experience in designing anything, but still make grand pronouncements as if they knew everything there is to know about it. His argument ignores the inherent and basic nature of any very complex and intricate mechanism (in this case the human eye). Any engineer knows that such a mechanism inherently incorporates numerous design tradeoffs between different and conflicting requirements.

    The incredibly complex system of systems and subsystems of the human body inevitably and necessarily has a limited capacity to satisfy all the conflicting requirements simultaneously.

    Just like in a human-designed automobile there might be simultaneous ideal design requirements or goals say for all in the same machine to have high power and acceleration capacity, a high carrying capacity of one ton, total vehicle weight under 3600 pounds, and high reliability. And let’s say you also want a long range of 500 miles, the ability to park and fit in a standard parking slot, a high degree of complex but correspondingly inherently failure-prone automation making many functions and conveniences automatic, and last but not least, a retail price of less than $15,000.

    These requirements are fundamentally conflicting and will inevitably require tradeoffs and limitations in some of the requirement goals, based on carefully weighing the pros and cons in each case. That’s engineering, whether it’s automobiles or the immeasureably more complex human body.

    Hence what must be a certain inevitability due to many inherent factors including the performance limitations of biologically created materials and their availability and metabolic costs, of there being many failure modes in the human body, in particular disease. In such an intricate system of systems every design change to correct a flaw in performance inevitably affects numerous other subsystems, some adversely. It’s all a matter of many complex series of tradeoffs.

    Of course biologists don’t understand this – after all they aren’t engineers; but they still unwarrantedly assume expertise that can somehow overcome basic engineering principles.

    In other words they make untenable and ignorant assumptions about the capabilities of any designers, as if designers (whatever their nature) were unlimited by the way the physical world inherently works.

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Darwinian evolution refutes itself. That is Evolution by Darwinian means is impossible.

    Look all around us. There are thousands of examples of great capabilities but none are all in one species.

    One would think that one species would emerge with a plethora of high level capabilities but there are none. Humans are the only conscious species with a high level of intelligence but far less than optimal physical capabilities. Why?

    Because that would be extremely bad design but it should have happened with Darwinian processes. It should allow for some species to dominate all others and in the process eliminate itself. But this has not happened

    However, great design would have an overwhelming number of species with far less than ultimate capabilities in order for it and the rest of the species to survive.

    Is it necessary for the best world of zillions of species to have limited capabilities for each of its species? Is the best of all possible world of species one where it is one instance after the other of imperfection?

    Do we live in a series of imperfections that add up to the best set of trade-offs to be the

    best of all possible worlds

    Aren’t you glad we don’t have the eyes of an owl/hawk, the speed of a cheetah, the agility of monkeys? If we did, we would have eliminated ourselves millions of years ago.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    No one has to refute that which lacks evidentiary support and cannot be tested. And the claim that vision systems evolved by means of blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection and drift, lacks evidentiary support and testability. Christopher Hitchens said we can dismiss such claims.

    Also, Nathan needs to remember that vision systems, containing multiple, differentiated cells, arose from a single cell. Developmental biology isn’t someone adding optimal parts to an existing, optimal system.

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    these Darwinian clowns …

    human eye outperforms any camera/lens humans ever created, but this Darwinian clown (natural science graduate), who never made anything, will call human eye a clunky/poor design … These guys are really retarded … i have no doubts now …

    https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/news/will-cameras-be-better-than-the-human-eye-one-day-new-research-says-maybe

  5. 5
    martin_r says:

    what is more disturbing, Darwinists claim, that basically the same very sophisticated camera eyes evolved two times independently (humans, octopuses) … by blind unguided process … how absurd does that sound ?

    What rational educated person can buy this non-sense?

  6. 6
    polistra says:

    Actually the variability of vision is Nature’s way of improving the fitness of the SPECIES, not the individual. Just as individuals have different temperaments and different genders and different labor talents, they have different vision capacities.

    Some see better up close, some see better at a distance, some don’t see at all. More variety means more ways to adapt to different situations, if we ALLOW the variety and PROVIDE DISTINCT JOBS AND ROLES for each variation.

    When we start with the assumption that everyone is “created equal”, we forcibly adjust all variations toward the mean by medical or mechanical methods or by eugenics. We lose the natural adaptability.

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    No one has to refute that which lacks evidentiary support and cannot be tested.

    And yet most people believe it and it is taught in textbooks.

    Why, because it sounds reasonable.

    What is taught in textbooks, is genetics but disguised because it is called micro evolution. And genetics or micro evolution has a firm base in science. How does one expose the bait and switch?

    Not by saying it is unproven and belittling Darwin.

    Genetics

    Genetics is the scientific study of genes and heredity—of how certain qualities or traits are passed from parents to offspring as a result of changes in DNA sequence

    Darwin’s theory is

    1) variability in DNA sequence (He new nothing about DNA but suspected something was varying between generations)
    2) heritability
    3) natural selection

    Modern genetics is based on the above ideas put forward by Darwin.

  8. 8
    martin_r says:

    Darwinists love to talk about poor human eye design, but they never talk about other very important things, among others- color image processing …

    I as an engineer, never understood how do Darwinists imagine human eye color processing in RGB color space.

    Could some smart Darwinist give me an idea, how blind unguided natural process figured out, how to assemble 16 millions of colors based on R/G/B information coming from eyes into the brain ?

    RGB color space or RGB color system, constructs all the colors from the combination of the Red, Green and Blue colors. The red, green and blue use 8 bits each, which have integer values from 0 to 255. This makes 256*256*256=16777216 possible colors.

    I am talking about the following:
    RED cones/sensors send some information, GREEN cones/sensors send some information, BLUE cones/sensors send some information … now the brain needs to combine/mix these to get you the right color …

    So how blind unguided natural process figured this out ??? What is the right combination ???
    We talking about 16,000,000 of right combinations of RED/GREEN/BLUE data !!!!

    https://www.rapidtables.com/web/color/RGB_Color.html#:~:text=RGB%20color%20space%20or%20RGB,*256%3D16777216%20possible%20colors.

    PS: another question is, how blind unguided process figured out that there is a RGB color space ? i never heard Darwinists to speak about this … never …

  9. 9
    JVL says:

    I’m really sorry Lt Com Data but after I posted a comment to ET on the thread https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/is-darwinism-an-empty-theory/

    I was blocked. Again. I’m not inclined to keep trying over and over and over again just because the site admin can’t get their WordFence settings right. If you want me to respond to you on the appropriate thread talk to them.

    Not that anyone is going to do that. I don’t even pretend to think that any of you who have posting privileges care. It would be encouraging if you at least made a gesture. But you won’t.

    And so it goes. Welcome to Uncommon Descent. It’s not about actually discussing the science. It’s about promoting those who agree with us.

  10. 10
    davidl1 says:

    JVL,

    I’m just an occasional poster, so I don’t think I have any leverage to get the issue investigated.

    You might be able to post in incognito mode in case it’s a cookie issue (seems unlikely based on what you’ve said), or trying with a different user id, or trying from a different IP address (assuming you’re using a VPN, or could use a proxy or Tor). I know those aren’t solutions, but they might help determine the cause of the problem.

    I know it’s not necessarily helpful, but some of those might be worth trying if you haven’t already.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    LoL! @ JVL! You don’t discuss science! You don’t even know what science entails.

  12. 12
    martin_r says:

    JVL, cry me a river …

  13. 13

    Nathan Lent’s book falls into the category of “I wouldn’t have designed it that way, therefore God doesn’t exist.”
    The following link is to an article I wrote a number of years ago, showing the many goal-oriented designs we see in nature all around us and within us.

    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/the-not-so-intelligent-designer/

  14. 14
  15. 15
    jerry says:

    Everyone is missing the point.

    Every life form on Earth is limited.

    Either the designer did this on purpose. Or the natural mechanism for Evolution is self limiting.

    For the first, the reason for this is obvious. Unless every life form is limited, the life forms that are not limited will destroy the ecology necessary for survival. And thus destroy themselves.

    Thus when Seversky asks why didn’t the designer give us the eyes of an owl or bigger brains, the answer is obvious. He was provided with this reasoning but continued to ask the question so he continued to play his games by ignoring it.

    But suppose all we see here in this world is the result of natural processes. Then why is every life form on the planet a miracle of complexity but yet limited. With each life form having something special about it so it doesn’t get eliminated in its ecology but most definitely limited. (I understand that numerous species have been eliminated including many by humans as they used their superior skills to kill them. Just imagine if humans could fly, have hawk eyes, and run like cheetahs, there wouldn’t be any living thing alive.)

    But nothing close exists. Why? Natural processes don’t understand this necessary limitation on evolving.

    Because these superior species never did exists, it refutes Evolution by natural processes.

    Aside: is the typical pro ID commenter here interested in establishing ID or just interested in supposedly making anti ID people look stupid? My guess the latter as 90+% of the comments are on irrelevant or inane ideas.

    I saw a survey this morning and less than a third of college age or younger believe in God. And at a time when the scientific evidence is overwhelming that there was a creator of immense power.

    https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1410989426440876033

    Aside2: no matter what level of a characteristic/capability desired, if it was there the person originally objecting would then request more by asking for even better eyes, more intelligence, faster speed or even more agility. There would be no limited on what was demanded

    Not knowing that by not already having those capabilities they have refuted what they espouse.

  16. 16
    chuckdarwin says:

    Martin_r @4
    FYI, nobody uses the term “retarded” anymore…

    Jerry @15

    Just imagine if humans could fly, have hawk eyes, and run like cheetahs, there wouldn’t be any living thing alive.

    Boy, you hit that nail smack on the head….

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    Doubter/1

    Lents’ argument reveals the common severe failing of most biologists in that they have no actual experience in designing anything, but still make grand pronouncements as if they knew everything there is to know about it. His argument ignores the inherent and basic nature of any very complex and intricate mechanism (in this case the human eye). Any engineer knows that such a mechanism inherently incorporates numerous design tradeoffs between different and conflicting requirements

    Are you aware that the argument being made is that evidence of design is evidence of the limitations of the designer and, therefore, inconsistent with the Christian concept of an omniscient and omnipotent deity? Nor is this a recent argument as it was stated cogently by the 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill as follows:

    It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For what is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance—the need of employing means—is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are not means, but an incumbrance. A man does not use machinery to move his arms. If he did, it could only be when paralysis had deprived him of the power of moving them by volition. But if the employment of contrivance is in itself a sign of limited power, how much more so is the careful and skilful choice of contrivances? Can any wisdom be shown in the selection of means, when the means have no efficacy but what is given them by the will of him who employs them, and when his will could have bestowed the same efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a Being for whom no difficulties exist. The evidences, therefore, of Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under limitations; that he was obliged to adapt himself to conditions independent of his will, and to attain his ends by such arrangements as those conditions admitted of.

    […]

    If it be said, that an Omnipotent Creator, though under no necessity of employing contrivances such as man must use, thought fit to do so in order to leave traces by which man might recognize his creative hand, the answer is that this equally supposes a limit to his omnipotence. For if it was his will that men should know that they themselves and the world are his work, he, being omnipotent, had only to will that they should be aware of it.

    So, by all means, you and Jerry and martin-r and WJM and KF and BA77 etc, are welcome to your Intelligent Designer if all you mean is some advanced alien intelligence – I have no problem at all with that – but you are going to have a hard time squaring that with your omniscient and omnipotent God.

  18. 18
    martin_r says:

    Ayearningforpublius

    I had a look at your links above …good job…

    You also cite R Dawkins and his ridiculous just-so story on alleged evolution of the human eye …

    Who is Dawkins? How is he qualified to review such a sophisticated design? How is Dawkins qualified to comment on any design? As far as i know, he is a natural science graduate… a romantic… this guy never made anything … he wont be able to assemble an ikea cabinet (without a guidebook )

    Recently, a famous US biologist passed away…
    Prof. E.O. Wilson AKA The Darwin of the 20th century…. Look at what he thought of Dawkins

    There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist. “Journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-29959821

    This is it … basically, a journalist is commenting on very advanced design …
    What is wrong with these people ???

    People like Dawkins infested the whole world with very absurd claims/ideas…
    What i dont understand, why so many smart educated people listen to such absurd claims???

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    Martin_r/8

    Could some smart Darwinist give me an idea, how blind unguided natural process figured out, how to assemble 16 millions of colors based on R/G/B information coming from eyes into the brain ?

    You can ask this and many other questions about biological evolution and the answer will still be the same “We don’t know yet”.

    I appreciate this must be difficult for engineers to understand – they are working with the known, the tried and tested, because they have to – but scientists are looking for the unknown, which has yet to be tried and tested. They are trying to add to our knowledge rather than find ways to apply what we already know.

    So how blind unguided natural process figured this out ??? What is the right combination ???
    We talking about 16,000,000 of right combinations of RED/GREEN/BLUE data !!!!

    Even more than that in the few individuals who are tetrachromats. But if they can integrate four color sensors why didn’t the designer give that capacity to us all?

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 17 states,

    Are you aware that the argument being made is that evidence of design is evidence of the limitations of the designer and, therefore, inconsistent with the Christian concept of an omniscient and omnipotent deity?,,,
    So, by all means, you,, are welcome to your Intelligent Designer if all you mean is some advanced alien intelligence – I have no problem at all with that – but you are going to have a hard time squaring that with your omniscient and omnipotent God.

    So Seversky, let’s get this straight. You, via your no problem with ‘advanced alien intelligence’, are basically admitting that you have less than zero evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can account for the origin and diversity of life on earth. But, on the other hand, you are absolutely certain that the Intelligent designer of life on earth is not the Judeo-Christian God because the Judeo-Christian would never allow us to exist in a less than perfect world?

    Really?? The world is less than perfect therefore Judeo-Christian theism is not true? That’s your argument????

    But Seversky, Christianity has NEVER claimed that we live in a perfect world. NEVER!

    To be blunt Seversky, perhaps you should have gone to Sunday school a little more often as a child. I mean REALLY, the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, and resultant fact that we live in a less than perfect world, is one of the first things that you learn in Sunday school as a child.

    Fall of man
    In mainstream Christianity, the doctrine of the Fall is closely related to that of original sin or ancestral sin.[2] They believe that the Fall brought sin into the world, corrupting the entire natural world, including human nature, causing all humans to be born into original sin, a state from which they cannot attain eternal life without the grace of God. ,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man

    Also see William Dembski’s book on Theodicy, “Finding a Good God in an Evil World”

    The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World
    William A. Dembski
    https://billdembski.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf

    Quote: “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge (the existence of) transcendent (moral) standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”

    The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    the·od·i·cy
    noun
    noun: theodicy; plural noun: theodicies
    the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.

  21. 21
    martin_r says:

    Seversky…

    I did it already elsewhere, but let me wish you once again – Happy 5th birthday!

    Seversky … all my questions about RGB color space are rhetorical…

    As to ‘we don‘t know yet’ …. but these are fundamental questions to answer if you Darwinists want to continue to make jokes of creationists … of course, these questions will never be answered ….

    i wish i had your level of faith … it is very disturbing what you lay Darwinists are willing to accept …

  22. 22
    martin_r says:

    Seversky

    Regarding the fourth sensor… did you notice what i replied in the other ‘Eagle eyes’ post? Eyes and energy consumption?

  23. 23
    jerry says:

    but you are going to have a hard time squaring that with your omniscient and omnipotent God

    Is the world we live in the best of all possible worlds?

    I’ve seen no one prove that it’s not the optimal world.

    You need to understand the objectives of the creator of this world before one can say it’s not the best possible world.

    You already have been shown why every species must be limited in order to survive. So limited abilities is best design. But do the series of these sub maximums make up the perfect design? It would be a prerequisite that species be sub maximum to be optimal or perfect design.

    If the objectives of the creator of this world were crystal clear, then would anyone doubt the creator. Would we then be automatons? Essentially without free will?

    It would take an extremely intelligent and powerful creator to pull this off.

  24. 24
    Seversky says:

    Jerry/15

    Either the designer did this on purpose. Or the natural mechanism for Evolution is self limiting

    So we are agreed that the process of natural selection operates in Nature?

    For the first, the reason for this is obvious. Unless every life form is limited, the life forms that are not limited will destroy the ecology necessary for survival. And thus destroy themselves.

    Natural selection favors any species which has the luck to have evolved some kind of advantage over its competitors. It doesn’t have to be a big advantage, just enough to give it an edge in terms of survival without being an existential threat to the entire ecosphere.

    Thus when Seversky asks why didn’t the designer give us the eyes of an owl or bigger brains, the answer is obvious. He was provided with this reasoning but continued to ask the question so he continued to play his games by ignoring it.

    Incremental evolution doesn’t preclude the possibility of a species emerging with a potentially huge competitive advantage, the equivalent of being able to dive into a call box or revolving door and emerging dressed in a Spandex suit with a large ‘S’ for Superspecies emblazoned on the chest.

    Such a species could well pose an existential threat to the entire ecosphere over time if allowed to rampage around unchecked. Much like us, really.

    The only hope would be if the species were to become aware of the damage it was doing and learned to curb its behavior.

    But suppose all we see here in this world is the result of natural processes. Then why is every life form on the planet a miracle of complexity but yet limited

    Evolution selects for whatever is just good enough to survive against the competition. Once a species has found it’s environmental niche it stays there unless it comes under pressures to change. Then it might lose out in the competition.

    (I understand that numerous species have been eliminated including many by humans as they used their superior skills to kill them. Just imagine if humans could fly, have hawk eyes, and run like cheetahs, there wouldn’t be any living thing alive.)

    I understand that around 99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct. You might expect this from a messy and inefficient process like natural selection but it’s pretty poor design.

    And human ingenuity has given us the power to fly, to see like hawks and travel faster than cheetahs over the ground.

    And, yes, we are potentially threatening the existence of all other living things on the planet.

    Your point being?

  25. 25
    jerry says:

    Your point being?

    Natural mechanisms don’t know when to stop. Faster, better eye sight, stronger, more agile would leave more descendants because they would monopolize the food. They therefore would outcompete lesser versions.

    Natural mechanisms would not if they could keep the more advantageous version suppressed just because there is no need for it. Versions should eventually emerge that would destroy the ecology. But they don’t. So there is a built in limitation in every species.

    Optimum design is a group of entitles with limited capabilities.

    An aside: natural selection has nothing to do with Evolution. It’s a concept relevant to genetics.

    Evolution has nothing to do with DNA. It has to do with cell placement and differentiation to produce systems that coordinate and thus make up the essence of a species. For that something exponentially more complicated that changes in DNA is necessary.

  26. 26
    doubter says:

    Seversky@17

    Are you aware that the argument being made is that evidence of design is evidence of the limitations of the designer and, therefore, inconsistent with the Christian concept of an omniscient and omnipotent deity? Nor is this a recent argument…

    Well, I’m not a Christian. And just a passing consideration of the requirements that must apply for our world to offer manifold opportunities for humans to achieve and experience would show that there absolutely must not only be free will but also a regularity of natural law, rather than a system subject to endless miraculous meddling by a capricious Diety. Whether these interventions were to mercifully alleviate suffering due to natural causes like disease, or to prevent natural disasters like earthquakes, these constant interventions into the regularity of natural law would have many bad effects, such as preventing Man from ever devising the immensely successful edifice of science and the scientific method. This points out that there appear to be logical and fundamental limitations to God’s creativity as manifested in the world. Maybe even He can’t 100% satisfy all the requirements simultaneously, at least without violating the regularity of natural law and even the basic laws of logic. Maybe there is no inconsistency with the Christian doctrine of omnipotence because He simply doesn’t choose to exert complete control over nature; that would interfere with the essential requirements for creative and fulfilling human life. After all, human achievement requires imperfection and adverse conditions to exist as a natural part of human life.

    All that said, even within these limitations, the bottom line is still that our living world is overwhelming evidence of design within design within design, the product of an immensely vast focused conscious intelligence.

  27. 27
    PaV says:

    Let’s take Lents straight on: he argues that ‘defects’ are a blow to ID theory since they are a blow to the idea of a ‘designer.’

    Are Chevy Corvettes ‘designed’? Yet there are Chevys that go bad, that are bad right off of the assembly line, and that malfunction in a variety of ways. Does this ‘prove’ that they weren’t designed?

    So, Cornelius Hunter rightly points out that Lents is using a ‘religious’ argument and is effectively arguing against an “All Knowing, All Powerful, All Perfect” Designer; i.e., God. But, Can God make something so big that He can’t pick it up? The problem does not lie in Who God is, but in the smallness of our intellects and experience.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    Natural selection is a process of elimination. Nothing is selected. Evolution does NOT select. seversky is confused or just ignorant.

    There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing eukaryotes from the given starting populations of prokaryotes. Given single-celled eukaryotes there isn’t any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the necessary biochemistry for developmental biology. Meaning metazoans are out of the reach of naturalistic processes.

    The people who rail against ID don’t have anything but to deny reality.

  29. 29
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77 @ 20
    Seversky @ 17

    But Seversky, Christianity has NEVER claimed that we live in a perfect world. NEVER!

    That may be true, however, Christianity has always claimed a perfect God, and that is really the point….

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD, “and that is really the point…”

    Failure in logic 101 ChuckyD

    Seversky claimed that living in an imperfect world counted as evidence against Christianity. Yet, the Bible has ALWAYS claimed that we live in an imperfect world.

    Shoot, the entire premise of Christianity is based upon the fact that we live in an imperfect world. It simply would not have been possible for Jesus to heal the infirm, make the blind see, and etc.., and ultimately defeat death itself on the cross, if we lived in a perfect world where disease, blindness, and death did not exist.

    Thus the fact that we live in an imperfect world CAN”T possibly count as evidence against Christianity but can only count as evidence for it.

    Frankly ChuckyD, since you yourself, like every other human on the face of earth, are destined to die, (which I would hope that you, like me, would find to be a very undesirable thing), then you might just want to give the evidential claim that Jesus defeated death a more sober second look, instead of the juvenile insults against Christianity that you currently give. After all, you’ve got nothing, except for death itself, to lose, and everything, i.e. an eternal heavenly life, to gain.

    1. The Resurrection of Jesus (Introduction) – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ErnJF_nwBk&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  31. 31
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77 @ 30

    Frankly ChuckyD, since you yourself, like every other human on the face of earth, are destined to die, (which I would hope that you, like me, would find to be a very undesirable thing), then you might just want to give the evidential claim that Jesus defeated death a more sober second look, instead of the juvenile insults against Christianity that you currently give. After all, you’ve got nothing, except for death itself, to lose, and everything, i.e. an eternal heavenly life, to gain.

    This is an illuminating response to my comment, even if not on point. First, you view death as “a very undesirable thing.” I find that odd coming from someone who claims to be certain that your death will lead to “eternal heavenly life.” I would think you would embrace death rather than fearing it. This fear of death gainsays your faith.

    Second, I’ve always found Pascal’s Wager poor soteriology. I doubt that God is so gullible as to give any credence to those who “believe” simply to hedge their bet. That is a pretty shallow and insincere reason to claim to accept Christianity. I think all those clever Pascalians will be embarrassingly unmasked on Judgement Day.

    Third, the “evidential claim that Jesus defeated death” is non-existent. This so-called evidence is entirely self-referential (i.e., found only in the Bible) hearsay summarized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-15. This “using the Bible to prove the Bible” is the poorest kind of “historical evidence.” For a fuller treatment of this problem, Justin Brierly just hosted a podcast on this very issue featuring Jonathan Pearce and your intellectual hero, Jonathan McLatchie. https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Do-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-Jonathan-McLatchie-vs-Jonathan-Pearce

    Finally, you state:

    Thus the fact that we live in an imperfect world CAN”T possibly count as evidence against Christianity but can only count as evidence for it.

    This is where you miss or ignore my point: I wasn’t trying to use our “imperfect world” as evidence against Christianity (which is simply a human concoction), but rather against Christianity’s God. It is that very imperfection that militates against a perfect God. Perfection cannot beget imperfection. This is not a new or particularly novel position, but it is logically unassailable.

  32. 32
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Second, I’ve always found Pascal’s Wager poor soteriology. I doubt that God is so gullible as to give any credence to those who “believe” simply to hedge their bet. That is a pretty shallow and insincere reason to claim to accept Christianity. I think all those clever Pascalians will be embarrassingly unmasked on Judgement Day.

    True.

    If someone is insincere just can’t follow Jesus “all the way” because the “tests” are passed only by people who believe 110% in Jesus.

    Third, the “evidential claim that Jesus defeated death” is non-existent.

    False.

    The death of all people who died for Him(starting with those who saw, followed , been taught by Him) is more evidential than all the evidences about Him.

  33. 33
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    It is that very imperfection that militates against a perfect God. Perfection cannot beget imperfection. This is not a new or particularly novel position, but it is logically unassailable.

    True: perfection cannot beget imperfection. But you know what is the definition of a perfect free will ? Yep: you can reject EVERYTHING including perfection which you are doing right now( concept of God=concept of perfection). Is “perfection” guilty for your choice ?

  34. 34
    jerry says:

    I’ve always found Pascal’s Wager poor soteriology

    Incredibly stupid remark.

    There is something called cost-benefit analysis used to make choices. When there is zero cost but potential large gains, logic says go for the potential gain.

  35. 35
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Incredibly stupid remark.

    Not really. Jesus wants all in or nothing.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Among other false claims, ChuckyD also falsely claims that, “Third, the “evidential claim that Jesus defeated death” is non-existent. This so-called evidence is entirely self-referential (i.e., found only in the Bible) hearsay summarized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-15. This “using the Bible to prove the Bible” is the poorest kind of “historical evidence.”

    Yet ancient Historians, who were hostile to Christianity, often, inadvertently, in their own writings provided some of the best testimonial evidence in support of the facts surrounding Jesus’ life and resurrection!

    “we have copious evidence for Jesus’ existence. If you don’t like the gospels, go to the Roman historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of Rome and how Nero got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the Christians. This Roman historian says that they are named for a Christus, who was crucified by one of our governors, Pontius Pilate. What more do you need? That quote alone would establish the historicity of Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christ in connection with the riot of those for or against Jesus across the Tiber. Pliny, the younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says that these Christians get up on Sunday morning and sing hymns to Christ as to a God. The Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of Nazareth in their own language. Whatmore do we need of witnesses? Josephus mentions Jesus twice.?I want to point out that Christian faith is based upon fact and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so many people are trying to turn fact into fiction.”
    – Dr. Paul Maier (recently retired Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University) quoted from the 100 Huntley Street telecast on March 30/04

    External Evidence for the Truth of the Gospels by Timothy McGrew
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtL8hCrvctc

    Jim Warner Wallace – God’s Crime Scene – (ancient hostile witnesses to Jesus 51:00 minute mark) – video
    https://youtu.be/a9zEqyi1c7Q?t=3037

    Experts’ Evidence for Jesus’ Crucifixion – ‘Criteria of Embarrassment’ From Jewish Talmud?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0egAzJ7bw?

    Here are a few more quotes to further refute ChuckyD’s patently false claim,

    “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
    (Gerd Lüdemann – Skeptical historian (and atheist), What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 8.)

    “I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”
    – Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome

    “Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”
    – Canon Westcott — for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University

    ChuckyD, might I also introduce you to the Shroud of Turin?

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

    So basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photography was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about. Moreover, even with our present day technology, we still cannot replicated the image in all its detail.?My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please pray tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments that he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical mad genius!

    Verse:

    John 20
    3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down and looked in at the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
    6 Simon Peter arrived just after him. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The clothb that had been around Jesus’ head was rolled up, lying separate from the linen cloths. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in. And he saw and believed. 9 For they still did not understand from the Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.

  37. 37
    zweston says:

    BA, Nice job as always.

    Sev must have a goalpost moving machine by now to make it easier and automatic.

    Sev: Asserts claim, gets refuted, moves goalposts to assert another unsubstantiated claim….

    Sev: If the God of the Bible appeared to you and you had knowledge without a doubt it was Him, would you repent of your sins and follow Jesus and warn everyone about hell and worship Jesus?

    Or, would it differ if….

    If God the God of the Bible were true, and a universalist, would you repent of your sins, turn from your current lifestyle and devote yourself to the worship and adoration of Jesus Christ, sharing his word with others?

  38. 38
    Seversky says:

    Doubter/26

    Maybe there is no inconsistency with the Christian doctrine of omnipotence because He simply doesn’t choose to exert complete control over nature; that would interfere with the essential requirements for creative and fulfilling human life. After all, human achievement requires imperfection and adverse conditions to exist as a natural part of human life.

    If God is omniscient then He knows all that there is to know. This means not just what is in our past and present but also all that is in our future. This also means that not only does He already know the outcome of any experiment of which we can conceive, He knows the entirety of our future history. In that case, what is the purpose of watching us struggle and suffer in this imperfect universe He created?

  39. 39
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/30

    Seversky claimed that living in an imperfect world counted as evidence against Christianity. Yet, the Bible has ALWAYS claimed that we live in an imperfect world.

    Shoot, the entire premise of Christianity is based upon the fact that we live in an imperfect world. It simply would not have been possible for Jesus to heal the infirm, make the blind see, and etc.., and ultimately defeat death itself on the cross, if we lived in a perfect world where disease, blindness, and death did not exist

    If this world were made perfect – without suffering, disease and death, as it was within God’s power and knowledge to make – there would have been no need for Jesus to endure the Crucifixion.

    So I will put to you the same question I put to Doubter, if after death we move to a much better “plane of existence”, why does your God make us suffer this imperfect world of disease and death first? What possible purpose can it serve?

  40. 40
    Seversky says:

    Zweston/37

    Sev: If the God of the Bible appeared to you and you had knowledge without a doubt it was Him, would you repent of your sins and follow Jesus and warn everyone about hell and worship Jesus?

    Not unless I got satisfactory answers to a number of questions I would want to put to Him.

    If God the God of the Bible were true, and a universalist, would you repent of your sins, turn from your current lifestyle and devote yourself to the worship and adoration of Jesus Christ, sharing his word with others?

    I am as imperfect as the next person and have done things that I have regretted on subsequent reflection but I have not committed “sins”, in the sense you mean, of which I need repent and I see no reason to turn from my current lifestyle.

    Your God, by definition, has the power to compel me think and believe differently if He chose. He could do it without causing me harm. He could have done that to all those who displeased or offended Him in the Bible. So why did He kill them or have them killed in such large numbers?

    Why should I abandon myself to the slavish adoration of a being who has not shown He is worthy of such obeisance?

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky asks, “if after death we move to a much better “plane of existence”, why does your God make us suffer this imperfect world of disease and death first? What possible purpose can it serve?”

    Well Seversky, unlike Darwinists, who arrogantly assume that they can fathom the infinite Mind of God and that almighty God, therefore, can have no possible purpose for allowing death and disease to exit in this world,

    “(Darwinian) atheists have their theology, which is basically: “God, if he existed, wouldn’t do it this way (because) if I were God, I wouldn’t (do it this way).”
    – David Klinghoffer – ENV editor

    And who, therefore, falsely assume that God “is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering”,,,

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:,,,
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo/

    ,,, unlike Darwinists, who arrogantly assume that they can fathom the infinite Mind of God and, therefore, falsely assume that God “is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering”, there are actually several (good) reasons, and/or ‘purposes’, the Christian can appeal to for why God might allow the presence of death and disease in this world.

    One of the most clearly understood (good) reasons for why God might allow suffering and death in this world is that we ourselves will (very) often endure self-imposed hardships in our own lives to bring about a much greater good in our own lives. i.e. Studying for years to master a certain subject. Physically training to become more, and more, proficient in a sport. Repeatedly denying yourself ‘small’ pleasures in order to save your money for a much ‘bigger’ pleasure, or etc.. etc..

    As Edward Fesser explained, “A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency.”

    This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018
    Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
    Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
    In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....oves-gods/

    Indeed, a (very) large part of child successfully maturing into a responsible adult is for a child to learn how to restrain, and/or control, his baser desires in order that he bring about his more noble desires for his life

    Thus, a (very good) reason for why God might allow death and disease in this world is clearly understood by how we ourselves, and others, (either successfully or unsuccessfully), live out our own lives here on this earth. In that enduring suffering in our own lives allows greater good to come about in our own lives.

    Thus the Darwinian atheist simply has no rational justification whatsoever for his belief, and/or presupposition, that God “is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering” (C. Darwin). i.e. Our very own lives give testimony to the principle of bringing about greater goods by enduring suffering.

    Romans 8:18
    I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

    Of supplemental note: It is not as if the Christian is holding out hope for some imaginary, pie in the sky, heavenly paradise that exists only in his imagination. Indeed, (due to the almost miraculous advances of modern science), the Christian can now know, with sober scientific certainty, that a ‘heavenly’ eternal dimension certainly does exist above this temporal realm.

    Specifically, I can appeal to none other than special relativity itself, (one of the most powerful, and precisely tested, theories ever in the history of science), to back up my claim that Judeo-Christian Near Death Testimonies are accurately describing a ‘physically real’ event that happened to them. i.e. of going to a higher, eternal, ‘heavenly’, dimension that exists above this temporal realm.
    (Dec. 25, 2021)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/50-christmases-later/#comment-743334

    Matthew 6:33
    But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

  42. 42
    jerry says:

    Interesting phenomenon!

    When one is obviously losing an argument against ID, never respond to the logical argument but attack Christianity.

    The OP is about the eye but here we are with the usual suspects discussing Christianity. Meanwhile an endless pointless argument over the same thing is going on in another thread.

    Why? Because ID is so obviously true that the malcontents must introduce extraneous concepts to generate comments. Debating ID will not do that.

    How long before the other usual suspects chime in.

  43. 43
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Seversky
    If God is omniscient then He knows all that there is to know.

    If Seversky is ignorant then he doesn’t know all that there is to know.

    Seversky:
    “Your God, by definition, has the power to compel me”
    Seversky:
    Why should I abandon myself to the slavish adoration”

    😆

  44. 44
    zweston says:

    Jerry, spot on. And I’m one of those people who continue to defend Christianity…but I really don’t need to. The facts have been laid out over and over again to anyone regularly on here.

    I think the point really is…. everyone’s point of contention is with Jesus. It isn’t about what is true. It’s about an emotional response to the exclusivity that Christ proclaimed. It isn’t about presenting people with more scientific facts about intelligent design… the stronghold isn’t factual but emotional.


    Sev, you didn’t answer the universalist thought experiment…so even after temporal suffering and difficulty everyone ends up in heaven…would you change your life now and radically follow Jesus?

    Sev admits if God literally comes to him and tells him to repent he won’t do it unless God meets his demands. Creator of the universe and sender of the savior of the world appears to him and won’t submit. Can’t be any more hard hearted than that. God must meet your standards…therefore you would say at that point you are God. That’s what you want. Just like Genesis 3, they wanted to be like God.

    Repentance is literally a change of mind…to stop your way of living now and fully follow Jesus. As a result of that, the sins will fall off of you. I like how you admit you have failed and done wrong but won’t call it sin. (Sin means literally “missing the mark”). You think you are a good person, and you have your own made up standard in your head for what that means. Sev keeps his place as God.

    Sev says why doesn’t God just compel me to follow him? So, on one hand you want him to change you if he wants to (no, you don’t) but then you’d be mad to find out he did it…good grief. Read Romans 1… it is also written…. because they glorify creation rather than the creator God gave them up to their lusts. Maybe that’s where you are…or maybe your conscience is still barking at you even now that your objections to Christ are incoherent and your lifestyle is displeasing to God.

    You have no degree of humility to recognize you have a limited perspective and outlook on life. Instead of yielding to Jesus and trusting in his character, you would rather debate the almighty. That’s what Satan wants to do too.

    You are truly the black knight of Monty Python…. and I think your teeth have fallen out too by now.

  45. 45
    zweston says:

    Chucky d, will you tell me your responses to the thought experiment?

  46. 46
    chuckdarwin says:

    Zweston @ 44
    I thought I was the Black Knight of Monty Python fame. So now its Sev? I’m hurt….
    I’m not sure I know which thought experiment you refer to–one had to do with universalism, the other with God actually appearing to me and confirming the truth of Christianity. Under the first scenario, it wouldn’t matter because eventually I’d make it to heaven. Perhaps “repenting” would shorten my sentence, I don’t know. Either way, I end up in heaven with everyone else. I will say, as an aside, that universalism makes the most sense to me because it addresses the issue of proportionality of punishment which makes God more believable than a creator that consigns his creatures to eternal torment. That is just gratuitously cruel.
    In the second scenario, if God actually appeared to me and convinced me of Christianity’s truth, of course I’d fall in line. I’d be crazy not to. But in my many decades on the planet, nothing even remotely close to the second scenario has happened in my life, nor do I anticipate it will….

  47. 47
    jerry says:

    spot on

    The anti ID people have conceded the truth of ID.

    There only strategy is mocking and diversion. No logic or evidence.

    It’s just that the pro ID people haven’t a clue how to communicate the truth of ID. They’re hung up on counterproductive approaches that they love but don’t persuade people.

  48. 48
    zweston says:

    To be honest Chucky, I get you and SEV confused all the time. You are both black knights. 🙂

    I just notice that no matter God the eternal framework, it doesn’t lead you to love Jesus, only escape attempt to escape judgment.

    I don’t see God being more probable that is universalist at all…it is completely independent of truth, unless you define truth as what makes the most sense to you…or actually what is most palatable based on your subjective judgment.

    In regards to needing God to physically manifest himself to you in a certain way…what way would he need to do that?

  49. 49
    zweston says:

    Jerry, in regards to this board, I think the truth of ID has been shown time and time again… which leads people to the next logical question… who is this intelligence, which is why they start trying to take down Christianity. Because they would recognize other worldviews are incoherent and not founded with near the attestation as Christianity.

    In my view, anyone who stands in opposition to Jesus must have a “stop gap” or insurance policy against this reality…. so they don’t go insane, become nihilists, or the like.

    It may be…
    1. God is so evil (in my subjective standard) I wouldn’t want to be with him for eternity anyways, so I’ll just go with everyone else. (even though I don’t think there will be fellowship of the wicked in hell)
    2. IF God is real, he is a universalist (Bart Ehrman insurance policy) so I’ll be alright in the end.
    3. IF God really wanted me to know him, he would appear to me, so that will be my excuse (which still doesn’t get you to heaven by arguing, and it disregards all the times specific people have witnessed to you and you have had the gospel shared to you as well as all the historical and internal evidence of the accuracy and authority of the Bible)
    4. WJM… the truth of the matter is so terrifying, I will hand wave it off because it would make me feel bad (completely independent of it being true or not)

    What else would make this list? Which one are you, skeptics?

  50. 50
    asauber says:

    “It’s just that the pro ID people haven’t a clue how to communicate the truth of ID. They’re hung up on counterproductive approaches that they love but don’t persuade people.”

    Jerry,

    I see no evidence you are persuading anyone, either. There’s no magic wand. So quit complaining.

    Andrew

  51. 51
    jerry says:

    I see no evidence you are persuading anyone, either

    Agreed!!!

    But glad you agree that ID is influencing very few and current approach is not working.

    There’s no magic wand

    Is this a recommendation to not try anything new?

    So quit complaining

    This sounds like not to try anything new and continue counterproductive approaches.

  52. 52
    asauber says:

    “Is this a recommendation to not try anything new?”

    Jerry,

    Not at all. It’s a recommendation to read the Parable of The Sower.

    Andrew

  53. 53
    jerry says:

    the Parable of The Sower.

    Agreed1!!

    However, it depends on what is sowed.

Leave a Reply