Unintelligent Design

A fellow called Keith Gilmour sends along his newly updated website listing examples of “unintelligent design” — now up to items intended.
Table of contents

For without his creations humans and our imperfections we would have nothing to study nor anything new to learn. Your very knowledge as you are is the perfect example of The Creators smart design.

If you know scripture as you conveniently referenced above you'd know the first of us disobeyed and in turn were disciplined. Why do you assume the creator wanted to create you as perfect? Why do you assume you already know the complete and final functions of what you deem badly designed? What if you miss something? Why do you assume you could reason like a higher entity that could be millions of times more knowledgeable than you? Are able to emulate the reasoning of a person smarter than you?

I'm you can't and would need to ask questions to understand intent, why would it be trivial with a creator infinitely more knowledgeable? What I don't like about most scientists nowadays, in not lack of faith, it's lack of humility towards knowledge.

Beyond Edge

Why do you assume there was a creator, given that everything we know about "the creation" is explicable in terms of evolution by natural selection, whereas attributing it to a creator is not only 1 not an explanation at al, in that it simply introduces something else for which there is no explanation, and 2 even granting this "explanation," it is clear that she was remarkably incompetent? Judith Eve Lipton, M. She and her husband David Barash have written about sex, war, and human nature.

Maybe we'd all be better off if we made a chimp-human combo. Nuclear abolition, the great cause of our time, needs us to overcome deterrence. Tardigrades are the world's toughest creatures; trisolarans are the most novel. Back Find a Therapist. What Causes Stress Eating? Parenting Adolescents and the Choice-Consequence Connection. Has Gender Always Been Binary? Unintelligent Design Anatomy is full of evidence that a "creator" wasn't very smart. My guess, Submitted by David P. Evidence people are very smart Submitted by Matthew Lopez on August 6, - 9: Submitted by Younes on September 1, - 2: Why do you assume there was a Submitted by David P.

Post Comment Your name. E-mail The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. Notify me when new comments are posted. Replies to my comment. The founders of evolutionary theory imagined adaptations — like the bullet shapes of fish and sea mammals, the wings of birds and bats, and the human being's opposable thumb and reasoning capacity — as well-crafted designs. Charles Darwin marveled at how adaptations were functionally "perfected for any given habitat" and Alfred Wallace saw in them "very much the appearance of design by an intelligent designer on which the well being and very existence of the organism depends.

This is because there never can be a natural selection of tools and materials from scratch. Natural selection is always bound by historically antecedent compromises between organic structures and environments. On a more abstract level, the causal processes genetic base-pair substitution that produce new designs in the history of life on earth are largely random with respect to any functions that those novelties might assume.

In land animals, for example, the mouth does double duty as an opening to take in food and air.

List of mistakes made by God - RationalWiki

As creatures evolved from water onto land, the opening to the respiratory system was jerry-rigged to share the pre-existing digestive tract's anterior structure, including the mouth and pharynx throat. In terrestrial vertebrates, the pharynx became a short passage linking the mouth to the esophagus and the windpipe. Any mistiming of the swallowing mechanism, which blocks off the air passage in routing food to the esophagus, causes choking. For humans, the problem is even worse because the mouth and throat do triple duty, serving also the function of speech. Both in swallowing food and in articulating speech sounds, respiration is temporarily inhibited as the larynx rises to close in swallowing or constrict in speaking the opening to the air passage glottis.

Humans are more liable than other animals to choke, as they attempt to simultaneously coordinate eating, breathing and speaking. In the bargain, the swallowing capacity of humans has become much weaker than that of other animals.

UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN

Or consider the procrustean fit of the reproductive, urinary and excretory tracts to the same anatomical region. In men, the uretha serves both as a urinary canal and a genital duct. This results in dysfunctions and diseases that pass from one system to the other. In women, these two functional passages are anatomically separated, but are sufficiently close to one another, and to the anus, to facilitate the spread of infection from each of the three systems to the others, especially during pregnancy.

EVOLUTION NEWS

But the most imperfect design affecting the child bearer's health and life, results from evolution's jamming together the outlets of all of three major expulsive functions into the same narrow basin: The "design flaw" of human childbirth has had cascading effects: Many aspects of social life, in turn, may have emerged under natural selection, and subsequent cultural selection, as compromises to such design problems. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?

Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? The Book of Job goes on to list a number of aspects of the world that seem wonderful or miraculous beyond human understanding. The claim is that, if humans have no understanding of how the wonders of the world were created, they cannot fully understand the things that appear flawed. Others argue that the observed suboptimality in one system or another is intentional, as a trade-off to improve overall optimal design.

Intelligent design proponent William Dembski questions the first premise of the argument, maintaining a distinction between "intelligent design" and optimal design. While the appendix has been previously credited with very little function, research has shown that it serves an important role in the fetus and young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development, which produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control homeostatic mechanisms.

In young adults, the appendix has some immune functions. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati and ophtalmologist Peter Gurney have both published articles on the Creation Ministries International website which disagree that the human eye is poorly designed, arguing that alternative arrangements would have further complications and that the human eye actually works very well. In addition, the plantaris muscle does atrophy. Its motor function is so minimal that its long tendon can readily be harvested for reconstruction elsewhere with little functional deficit.

It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population. In response to the claim that uses have been found for "junk" DNA, proponents note that the fact that some non-coding DNA has a purpose does not establish that all non-coding DNA has a purpose, and that the human genome does include pseudogenes that are nonfunctional "junk", with others noting that some sections of DNA can be randomized, cut, or added to with no apparent effect on the organism in question.

The Problem with Arguments from “Unintelligent Design”

The argument from poor design is sometimes interpreted, by the argumenter or the listener, as an argument against the existence of God , or against characteristics commonly attributed to a creator deity , such as omnipotence , omniscience , or personality. In a weaker form, it is used as an argument for the incompetence of God.

The existence of "poor design" as well as the perceived prodigious "wastefulness" of the evolutionary process would seem to imply a "poor" designer, or a "blind" designer, or no designer at all. In Gould's words, "If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes.

The Dynamic Genome: Unintelligent Design

Orchids are not made by an ideal engineer; they are jury-rigged The apparently suboptimal design of organisms has also been used by theistic evolutionists to argue in favour of a creator deity who uses natural selection as a mechanism of his creation. This allows proponents of intelligent design to cherry pick which aspects of life constitute design, leading to the unfalsifiability of the theory.


  • The Pinecone Problem.
  • UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN | leondumoulin.nl!
  • Trustee from the Toolroom (Vintage Classics);
  • Aus die Maus: Ungewöhnliche Todesanzeigen (German Edition).
  • 50 Interviews: Entrepreneurs - The Secrets to Thriving in Uncertain Times.
  • Alice?