And still another way to deal with atheists …

_{William Dembski
April 11, 2007

Just For Fun

1}_{Categories
Just For Fun}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

If the direct approach of withholding Christmas presents doesn’t work, here’s a more reasoned approach along the lines of classical natural theology (not to be confused with ID proper):

Comments

phonon that wasn't the point I was making. The point was that if our bodies are supposed to be evolving to aid survival in nature then why are our bodies not better designed for that? Why would apes lose their tougher skin and fur? Why would these lose their greater strength? Why would they lose their digestive ability? etc etc etc. It's not just humans that face this question. You need human hands to build tools. Even if our brain enables us to survive, that still doesn't give a reason as to why we evolved to lose the favorable survival traits apes have over us.mentok_{April 15, 2007
April
04
Apr
15
15
2007
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

mentok, if our bodies were truly optimized for building things why do we need so many tools to build things? Our brains, on the other hand, are quite good at helping us overcome our physical limitations. Our brains are what enable us to be such great survivors as a species.phonon_{April 15, 2007
April
04
Apr
15
15
2007
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

His intention was in the right but a better way to go about it would be to point out the obvious aesthetically pleasing aspect of the natural world and then ask how can evolution account for it. Why is nature (living things and non living things) color coordinated? Why is the natural world artistically brilliant? It's not purely subjective. Color coordination, symmetry, etc, are objective qualities which create an aesthetically pleasing thing. Why are almost all animals objectively so artistically brilliant? Why are flowers and trees and fruits, etc not only amazingly artistically brilliant, but they also provide delicious tastes and smells. Why is amazing art the rule rather then the exception? Why is it that the food which humans need to survive doesn't taste bad? Can evolution react to what we perceive through our senses? Wouldn't evolution have to be conscious to do that? And intelligent? We can't survive off of grass or leaves of trees and bushes or what most other anumals live off of. Why is that? Look at what the apes and monkeys can eat. They can survive off of food which we cannot and which would taste horrible to us. How is that copacetic with claiming we are more evolved then apes? If you make the argument that humans evolved into omnivores from the herbivore ape so that we don't need to eat random vegetation, then how is that aiding survival? Wouldn't it make it easier to survive if we had the ability to eat what apes and other herbivores can? Some random grass or weeds or leaves are usually easier to acquire then hunting for animals or trying to find the specific vegetation which we can digest. Why are humans seemingly less evolved from apes and other animals if we had to rely solely on our physicality to survive without the aid of technology of any type? Can we live like leopards or wolves or apes or deer? Why do we have weaker bodies and weaker jaws, teeth, digestion, etc? Why are we furless with such sensitive skin? If we were without any kind of clothes or tools and were thown into the wilderness would we be better suited for survival then all other species? Any rational person should be able to see that humans are not designed for optimal survival in nature, we are designed for being able to experience optimal sensory and social pleasure. Our skin is not desinged to protect us, it's desgined to give the most amount of pleasure that skin can give. Therefore it is very sensitive and can be easily damaged. Our bodies are not quadraped like apes or other species because it is more pleasurable to live as a biped, both physically and socially. The quadraped design is better suited for survival, it's stronger, faster, and uses less energy. Humans are very frail when compared to how most other species are equiped to survive. Yet we are supposed to be at the apex of the evolutionary journey towards the ever improving ability to be able to survive. In fact our bodies are optimally designed to be able to build things, to use technology, to enjoy pleasure, to have complex intellectual social lives. We are not the products of selection pressure and blind mutations in aid of our survival in a battle against nature. We are designed to be the users and enjoyers of the world. The world was designed to be enjoyed by us.mentok_{April 14, 2007
April
04
Apr
14
14
2007
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

"Perhaps the designer favours humans though." Obviously, the designer favors humans. And Orcas. And basically anything else that no animal prefers to eat. Can you imagine what life would be like if we were harvested for food?Designed Jacob_{April 14, 2007
April
04
Apr
14
14
2007
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

"The banana is a great design. Anybody who won't admit that has probably never designed anything or is in a state of denial." When I've brought up the design attributes of a banana, the replies have been that it had tough seeds, was small and hard to digest, and that it's only as good as it is through man's genetic engineering. I suspect that if it was sub-optimal at one time, it was still eaten, and must have contained within its genome the features you see in today's asexual version. So did man design it? Popycock. More central to its existence however is how and why it would have evolved on its own with the features it has? Selection advantage? Yeah, right!LeeBowman_{April 13, 2007
April
04
Apr
13
13
2007
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Would you then also argue that the human eye evolved to determine when the banana was ripe and ready to eat? Human physiology evolved to accept the banana as nutritious? The human taste buds evolved to find the banana tasty? All of that just seems stupid. The banana is a great design. Anybody who won't admit that has probably never designed anything or is in a state of denial.Jehu_{April 13, 2007
April
04
Apr
13
13
2007
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

You could run the video with a voice-over dub explaining how the hominid hand evolved to fit bananas (survival advantage if you can eat more efficiently than your neighbor) and the it would fit that argument just as well.dacook_{April 13, 2007
April
04
Apr
13
13
2007
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Contrachronos, and if you still have a crisis of faith consider Catholicism.tribune7_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

I was hoping atheism had an answer for me. In the end I just came very confused and convinced I commited the unpardonable sin. Those times haunt me to this day. Contrachronos, Jesus went through too much aggravation to let you slip from His hands for failure to be perfect.tribune7_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Ray's argument is not a scientific one, it is an appeal to the simple fact that all of creation is a miracle declares the Glory of God. Of course the athiests despise and mock Ray's arguments. That doesnt' make it bad. As Paul wrote, even before the rise science,
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. 1 Cor. 1:27-29
Being intellectualy weighty and impressive sounding is not a prerequisite for truth.Jehu_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

The New Zealand Herald is clearly keeping an eye on us: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/column/story.cfm?c_id=702&objectid=10433914Gods iPod_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

The guy did a good Ken Ham immitation. The voice and mannerisms were almost identical.scordova_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

This is a good example of how "not" to argue ID. This is why the various rationalists, atheists and enemies of Christianity attacked the otherwise valiant effort of Paley.rockyr_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

contrachronos, I was always taught the Judeo-Christian God was loving and forgiving and each of us was made in his image and were his children. So hang in there and look for this loving and forgiving God who will look for each of his lost sheep. He is out there.jerry_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Ray Comfort's calvinistic world view is what lead me to atheism back in the day. My conviction was no man could possibly live up to the expectations of John Calvin's God. I was hoping atheism had an answer for me. In the end I just came very confused and convinced I commited the unpardonable sin. Those times haunt me to this day.contrachronos_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Jerry, this guy if for real.DanaMcgee_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

There is an old expression, "God's fools," to describe those who do more harm to religion than good by the superstition and nonsense they espouse. Every religion has them and if this is serious, then this is an example. I assumed that this was satire. If it was not, then we are watching one of God's fools because the argument is a joke. I am sorry if I am offending anyone but that is my take.jerry_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Do you think Ray Comfort does more harm to the Christian cause than good?DanaMcgee_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Man this guy again with bananas!?! I think he's obsessed with them or something.shaner74_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Wow! I thought this was a joke for awhile, but then I started to realize that it might not be.... and then I laughed.jmcd_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Oh no..... Not the Ray Comfort banana thing.... I've seen this one before, and I've also seen it roundly ridiculed and parodied by atheists in a rather crude sort of way (I won't describe it, but, just.. uh.. use your imagination [hint: they came up with some other uses for which bananas are ideally suited]). I hope you had your tongue in your cheek when you posted this.jb_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

you might argue that a banana was designed for human consumption . . . It's seems to be facetious arguement. OTOH, because it is facetious it would be mean that it is perfectly designed to answer the "bad design means no design" claim which can best be addressed via facetious arguments.tribune7_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

The banana is a great design.Jehu_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

LOL @ Scubaredneck.Atom_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

It is indeed Kirk Cameron along with Ray Comfort. Ray's the guy responsible for those bullhorn guys who call you a lying thieving adulterer on street corners. Just like Jesus did. Oh, wait, no He didn't did he. Something about NOT condemning people comes to mind. Poor kirk. Hope you don't get Left Behind pal.Gods iPod_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

My son is convinced that bananas were designed for his consumption, to heck with everyone else. ;-)The Scubaredneck_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

you might argue that a banana was designed for human consumption, but then again it's also eaten by many other animals, many of which don't have hands. Perhaps the designer favours humans though. However, we should also note that the current banana is a mutant. I think I've read that the original bananas had to be cooked. Also, what about fruits like the durian then? Why would a designer design a heavy fruit that grows on tall trees, falls with the possibility of hurting people, and covered with a thick spiky shell? Is such a fruit designed for human consumption? I only watched a few minutes of it, (the download stalled for my computer) but the presenter in the video makes a case for "the whole of creation" based on a single banana. Honestly I don't think the argument made in the video is a good one. The world isn't perfect, of course, and I don't think we should pretend that it is. "And we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now." - Romans 8:22WinglesS_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

Is that Kirk Cameron next to him? I also saw Francis Collins wandering in the background enjoying the Cascade Mountains while reading C.S. Lewis. Are you sure this isn't a glimpse of Heaven?late_model_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply