An intelligent designer is not constrained by an idiotic straight-jacket of consistency.
56 comments
A Conservapedian is not constrained by an idiotic straight-jacket of reality.
Besides, don't you people appeal to an Intelligent Designer's desire for consistency when trying to argue away homology?
Consistency HELPS with designing things intelligently.
You know what I would consider evidence for intelligent design? If Earth was like Pandora, designed perfectly for extreme symbiosis between everything, all working in favor of humans. I would consider that evidence for ID or even creationism, because that certainly seems to suggest that something is guiding everything in our favor.
Of course, Earth ISN'T like Pandora, so the question is moot.
Right..because consistency is an idiotic straight jacket..
Good thing the real world is COMPLETELY inconsistent to be able to prove that ID is correct. I mean, everymorning I wake up the laws of the universe change.
Once again Andy is ignoring the fact that the way biology works is consistent with the findings of chemistry and biology.
Hence why you'll never see a two-story invertebrate on land and why quadrapedal animals would have worse knee and back problems than we do if they tried to walk on two legs.
Thank you, Mr. Schlafly. I haven't laughed that hard since Arrested Development went off the air.
@GodotIsWaiting4U:
I know, right? I couldn't help but think, "Man, I would SO believe in God if that were real." But as it is, the only intelligent designer I believe in is James Cameron.
re: Avatar
I guess the argument can be made that Eywa was a combination of Gaia and intelligent designer for Pandora, in addition to being a sort of biological internet.
I've also heard some theorize that the Na'vi were created based on the first humans to arrive on Pandora. It's a neat idea. Cameron has said that he would explain their human-likeness in the novel of the film.
/WAAAAY off topic
With credit due to Professor Don Wise:
My bones proclaim a story
of incompetent design.
My back still hurts, my sinus clogs,
my teeth just won’t align.
If I had drawn the blueprint,
I would cer-tain-ly resign.
Incompetent Design!
Evo-Evo-Evo-lution!
Design is but a mere illusion.
Darwin sparked our revolution.
Science SHALL prevail!
To me this sounds like typical evasive bullshit. What would be consistency is 'things we should expect to see if the universe had an intelligent designer and why'
I think they just want to be able to say that whatever the universe is is what we should expect regardless of how crazy that idea is. Oh yeah, and shout you cannot know the mind of god at their detractors.
Andy, it does your cause no good when you keep shouting "ID is unfalsifiable and therefore not science" at us in your roundabout way.
"An intelligent designer is not constrained by an idiotic straight-jacket of consistency."
As 'twere with Michael Behe, and others who testified at a certain court case. As a result, Judge John E. Jones III (himself a Conservative Christian, and appointed to the Federal bench by no less than President George Dumbya Bush himself), ruled for the plaintiffs.
Thus Kitzmiller vs. Dover set the precedent. Teaching 'Intelligent Design' is now illegal - and unconstitutional - in all US educational establishments.
What is basically 'Creationism by Stealth' was ruled unlawful by someone, promoted by someone else voted in by people who believe in Creationism. Ah, the irony is exquisitely sweet.
At least the stupidity of Repubicans, Neocons and the Religious Right is consistent - and is one constant in the universe.
When you believe in everything that gawd does, you can be assurred that YOU have created gawd in your own image. So, that makes you Andy, the intelligent (I use that term loosely in your case) designer of gawd. So of course your gawd doesnt have to be consistent. Because YOU are not consistent, therefore your creation of your gawd doesnt have to be consistent.
"An intelligent designer is not constrained by an idiotic straight-jacket of consistency."
Yet the most abundant protein complex on the planet, rubisco, shows remarkable consistency. Not only is it present in plants, algae and photosynthetic bacteria in the same form, it is consistently one of the least efficient enzymes of any biological process.
Now if rubisco were inherited from a single common ancestral origin and very negatively sensitive to change, then that's perfectly explainable, and in fact it has so far proved impossible to genetically engineer a better rubisco (but see recent [i]Nature[/i] ).
But why would an intelligent designer be constrained to use the same inefficient design everywhere? Since they are not required to re-use the photosynthesis mechanism of bacteria, why not just give plants a better one?
So... wait. I can disprove ID then by dropping a ball off the roof three times and, by the consistency of it falling, proves the universe is not designed?
Wow. If only it were that simple.
Wait. It is.
1)god is not restrianed by consistency.
2) The universe is consistent.
:.there is probably no god, or he chose to be consistant to fool us.
and now we just apply occams razor.
All intelligent designers use at least a bit of consistency, don't they? You want your design to work equally well for all users, and to work as well each time it's used.
The stupid designers don't use that "idiotic straight-jacket of consistency", but they don't produce any useful designs.
Are we talking engineering, dress-making, gardening or interior design or what?
Religion? Oh, religions are definitely designed, by men who didn't bother with that idiotic straight-jacket.
Thank you for acknowledging that:
1) "Intelligent designer" is, in fact, a euphemism for "god," making ID nothing more than creationism in drag, and...
2) Creationism depends on whimsical changes in scientific laws and, therefore, does not qualify as a scientific theory
Feel free to help us out anytime Andy
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.