I do not disagree with any of your points. The issue is that I didn’t express my thoughts and arguments clearly.
My point is that we counter the I.D. arguments with the idea that there are seeming design flaws that are better interpreted through evolution as opposed to Godly Creation . . . and I was trying to point out that a “flaw” is not a “black or white” dichotomous idea . . . but rather a matter of context and/or circumstance, and that I believe that context and circumstances should be considered before deciding that something is an engineering and/or design flaw. Often, something we perceive as a flaw can turn out to be an advantage in the future if circumstances change, so I believe that these flaws in living things are actually a part of the diversity that allows living things to avoid extinction, and thus not a flaw.
In the example I gave with the fish, eyes would be a design flaw for a fish that lives in a cave, yet a lack of eyes would be a (probably fatal) design flaw for a fish that lives in a shallow coral reef.
If there is such a thing as “Creation”, and this creation is a godly created one, then yes, I would consider them design flaws or, alternatively, flaws in the creator’s inventiveness, imagination, and/or powers of creation. In an evolutionary perspective, they are not flaws as such, just more or less optimal reuse and rearrangement of fish body parts. In evolution, adaptations need not be perfect or optimal, they just need to be good enough and work adequately to improve the chances of spreading genes.
Why would a supposed ompipotent creator god create umpteen different species with different specialisations and optimisations, and still follow the same body plan, almost down to a tee? Why would, for example, all mammals have the same basic body plan? Why would apex predators share a body plan with their prey? And even with the prey of their prey? Why would they have slightly different uses of the same skeletal bones, just rearranged and resized? Why would an asian tiger be created with the same basic body plan as sloths, platypuses, homo sapiens, birds, reptiles, and fish? Are the powers and the imagination of this alleged creator god so limited that she is unable to create separate species that have actually optimised body plans for their role, instead of reusing a body plan that is just a variation of fish?
TL;DR: “Flaws” in the perceived design of animals are not really flaws in the eyes of evolution, just less optimal solutions that work nonetheless. If there really is a flaw, it must be in the powers and imagination of a hypothetical creator god.
1 Like
I agree with most of the points both Kevin and Get Off posted. I think my point was about the argument against ID. I’m trying to find arguments that are effective in changing IDer’s minds (If that is possible.)
I’d also like to shift the burden of proof back to where it belongs. My thought was to make the IDer identify things that indicate a “design”.
Except that it’s quite clear the “Intelligent Design” is truly “Creationism” without the clerical collar. Even worse, IDers seem to be a lazy bunch and don’t explore better examples of “design”. I can think of several examples that might be even better at illustrating “design” in the universe and yet it seems they can’t get past “It all looks designed to me.” That argument is just not very persuasive.
1 Like
Intelligent Design has always bothered me, because it seems to be pushed in schools, and Florida is actually considering laws to make this idea part of the standard school curricula.
Evolution explains thing like antibiotic resistance in bacteria, when drug resistant organisms kill thousands and thousands of people in hospitals every year, and we need bright, young new minds with fresh ideas to counter this health threat . . . which we won’t have if we substitute religion for science in the classroom.
The thing that I think is most interesting about Intelligent Design is that it can be made to sound scientific even when it isn’t. This means that people can be deceived into thinking that they are acting in their best interests without realizing that they are being conned.