Intelligent Design is Obviously False (was: ... Intelligent Design ... publish[ed])

Sam Wormley wrote:
> Science is based on empirical data, John.

.... the main problem which is spelled out repeatedly below.

Sorry if it repeats, but some times it pays to beat a dead horse, just
to make doubly sure it doesn't get back up.

>>From talk.origins
March 2, 2002

macaddicted <harisel...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Does anyone know of a scientist who holds a graduate
> level degree in a specialty related to evolution and has
> published in scientific peer reviewed journals who supports ID?

It would be kinda hard, since in order to have intelligent design you
have to have things whose designs were intelligent! But when you look
around, all you ever see are incredibly stupid "designs" that no
competent designer would have ever made.

If intelligent design were true, we'd all have wheels instead of legs,
or operate by jet power (combined with our respiratory system); instead
of having to compensate for this stupid design with a whole glut of
automobiles and other vehicles.

Nobody in their right mind would design a system-critical function
without some serious redundant backup. If there were intelligent
design, we'd have 2 hearts, not 1. A left heart and a right heart;
just like we have a left and right lung.

We wouldn't have nerves, but microelectronic (or better) structures
which allow signalling speeds of a sizeable fraction of the speed of
light, instead of the piddling slow speed.

If there were intelligent design, this whole planet would not be so
easily ripe for takeover by the REAL products of intelligent design --
the generation of intelligent machines and/or cyborgs
(machine-retrofitted organic lifeforms) which will overtake the human
race and become the dominant species.

==================

>>From news://sci.anthropology
January 23, 2003
edconrad@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> Deceit, deception, collusion, conspiracy
[x 15]

Littanies of personal manifestos aside, the main problem is that in
order to have intelligent design, you need to first HAVE an intelligent
design, which there clearly ain't very much of.

There are so many sound, well-known, principles of sound engineering
lacking from the construction of the human body that it looks like
nothing more than a parsimonious accident ... and even that achieved
only after extensive trial and error.

Meanwhile, a mere 100 years of engineering have led to machines that
can outperform even the best chess player in the world, outfly the
swiftest birds, and move over land up to 10 times faster than a
cheetah.

And half the endeavor wouldn't have even been necessary, had the body,
itself, just been designed more soundly so that humans wouldn't have to
constantly go seeking compensations via machines for what nature was
too inept to equip them with. Add to that the whole medical industry.

============

>>From news://talk.origins
April 4, 2003
Glenn <gsheldon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Today, biologists have a new and growing theory of life's origin:
> intelligent design.

But in order to have intelligent design, you need to have an
intelligent design! Humans are a monstrosity of ad hoc kludges and
horrifically incompetent "design decisions" (looking so bad that it's
like someone just threw a bunch of parts up in the air and said
'done!') which our societies have already spent too much time
dedicating too many resources trying to fix. Automobiles, computers,
communications networks, houses, clothing, the entire medical and
health profession -- all these things to fix a "design" that no
"designer" ever had any business putting together in the first place!

And all that wasted effort creating a massively parallel computer of a
brain and then squandering it all by hooking it up to the world with
low bandwidth channels practically worse than a single lousy RS-232
link. What a waste of effort, if it really was a "design".

The critical systems are ALWAYS designed with redundant backup. That
means at 2 hearts, not one. There's no capacity for self-repair (i.e.,
self-cloning of replacement organs during a period of stasis following
severe injury); extremely slow and inefficient locomotion (where's the
jet propulsion system linked to the respiratory system? Or for God's
sake, even wheels?!) Signals going a mere paltry few hundred miles per
hour. I mean come on. Is it too much both to use something that
actually conducts electricity and allows signals to go around light
speed?

The list just goes on and on.

The "design" shows no evidence of intelligence.

The mere proposition of the theory is the height of hubris of a species
too full of itself which has clearly overstayed its welcome aboard the
top of the food chain.

===========

>>From news://wi.general
November 6, 2002
Carol Lee Smith <human@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>Dr. Massimo Pigliucci will give a free 60-minute presentation entitled
>"A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory"
>In his UWM presentation, Dr. Pigliucci will dissect arguments
>advanced by creationists, who claim intelligent design--and its
>implied God-designer--is the best explanation for existence.
>According to Dr. Pigliucci, such arguments are "clever but [...]

Not even. It is not only not clever, but the whole idea misses the
point: the body is NOT an intelligent design to begin with!

As a design, it is incredibly stupid and incompetent. The
communications is ploddingly slow, inefficient -- so much so that a
great deal of technology has been dedicated just to compensate for that
flaw. The most critical subsystem (the heart) has no backup -- any
responsible designer would have placed 2 hearts in the body: a left and
right one.

There's no repair system for any of the critical systems. Other
species can, for instance, grow new body parts. It's taken up to the
latter part of the 20th century just to get to the point where this
flaw can even begin to be addressed and compensated for by technology
(cloning body parts).

[And the brains of a large segment of the population (the
fundamentalists) is so thoroughly damaged that they actually trying
their damned hardest (of all things!) to lobby to prevent even so much
as that!]

The transportation system is -- frankly -- totally lame; and a large
portion of modern technology has had to have been developed just to
compensate for the unbelievably incredible oversight of the "designer".
If there had been a designer, they must have been half asleep when
doing the project.

If the body had been designed, it would have had wheels, not legs, or
otherwise would have been capable of flight by jet propulsion, with the
respiratory system linked up with the propulsion system. The only good
legs do is that they serve as nice ornamentation for female bodies.

For all the supposed advantages of the "design" of the brain, what good
does it do if it's all just going to get lost the first time the heart
breaks down because someone forgot to design a backup to the critical
system. And what good does all the processing power do, if the
reaction time is so incredibly slow that you end up getting run down by
a car (or animal in the wild) because you couldn't think fast enough to
get out of the way. At the level of milliseconds, you're as dead and
unresponsive as a rock.

And what good is all the power or intelligence (which, itself, is
begging the
question) if it's all imprisoned inside a calcium prison with nothing
connecting it to the outside world except an extremely narrow channel.
That's like designing a 10 lane highway and then routing it to a dead
end street. Good going, there.

Had this "designer" been working for me, I would have fired their ***
for their extreme incompetence. There simply is no design. That much
is self-evident.

.

Quantcast