RE: 'Intelligent' design?
March 11, 2012 at 5:15 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2012 at 5:25 am by Welsh cake.)
Coincidentally I was just reading this old article about "Stupid Design" after I heard the phrase on an old episode of Atheist Experience.
The proposition, while wholly unscientific and lacking in empirical support, won't be disappearing any time soon. That how apologetics work. They'll keep moving the goalposts and making pathetic excuses whenever their inherent contradictions arise.
We presented the Argument from poor design, proponents of ID obviously want to avoid the apparent problem of poor design evident in nature, so they insist that "we've failed to understand the perfection of the design" which is complete bullshit and in no way addresses why there is so much suffering in the world or explains away the demonstrable inefficiencies and wastage around us. It reveals that we do understand the "faulty designed" world around us.
Then they realised asserting creation as 'perfectly made' by an intelligent force is untenable. Eventually to settle the "debate" we'd have to examine the so-called intelligence of the creator that would deliberately make everything imperfect and this presents an obvious implication these lobbying arseholes - the last thing these frauds, these con artists in lab coats, want is us calling into question their god's competence or morality by systematically breaking down their Christian beliefs one-by-one.
So, creationists insidiously retreated back to the 'optimal designer' clause, which will probably replace ID before long. Of course they still assert the error lies with us (which still begs the question of stupid design because how can an intelligent designer make its creation so stupid it would not instinctively know or recognise its creator?). Christians are still pulling that original sin crap out of their arses as usual, but they've also taken the philosophical stance that god is still an intelligent designer who implemented "overall optimal efficiency". If it works or breaks down its working as perfectly as it can.
Try as they might though they still haven't managed to invalidate the argument from poor design because any "optimum efficient creation" even if our suffering was for the better-good or frailty was intentional, would still not have so much junk and waste, or lack of built-in fail safes for when things do go catastrophically or fatally wrong.
When the argument returns back to their designer, we see that, if the intelligence of this being stands, and it intentionally made all these flaws, then God is an abominably evil designer.
If it lacks intelligence to implement creation properly or repair it quickly when it falls apart then God is an incompetent bumbling designer.
Lastly, if the 'loving designer' premise still stands, then the being simply lacks the power and foresight to anticipate error and so God is inept and impotent, or the perfect god has an 'inherent flaw' within its own character its not even aware of, and that is, its inability to recognise mistakes, irregularities and oversights appearing in its creation. Like a mother who cannot 'see' the abnormalities or deformities with her child because she loves him/her too much.
This concept of God cannot comprehend error, all of which points back to stupid design, either by intent or blunder.
The proposition, while wholly unscientific and lacking in empirical support, won't be disappearing any time soon. That how apologetics work. They'll keep moving the goalposts and making pathetic excuses whenever their inherent contradictions arise.
We presented the Argument from poor design, proponents of ID obviously want to avoid the apparent problem of poor design evident in nature, so they insist that "we've failed to understand the perfection of the design" which is complete bullshit and in no way addresses why there is so much suffering in the world or explains away the demonstrable inefficiencies and wastage around us. It reveals that we do understand the "faulty designed" world around us.
Then they realised asserting creation as 'perfectly made' by an intelligent force is untenable. Eventually to settle the "debate" we'd have to examine the so-called intelligence of the creator that would deliberately make everything imperfect and this presents an obvious implication these lobbying arseholes - the last thing these frauds, these con artists in lab coats, want is us calling into question their god's competence or morality by systematically breaking down their Christian beliefs one-by-one.
So, creationists insidiously retreated back to the 'optimal designer' clause, which will probably replace ID before long. Of course they still assert the error lies with us (which still begs the question of stupid design because how can an intelligent designer make its creation so stupid it would not instinctively know or recognise its creator?). Christians are still pulling that original sin crap out of their arses as usual, but they've also taken the philosophical stance that god is still an intelligent designer who implemented "overall optimal efficiency". If it works or breaks down its working as perfectly as it can.
Try as they might though they still haven't managed to invalidate the argument from poor design because any "optimum efficient creation" even if our suffering was for the better-good or frailty was intentional, would still not have so much junk and waste, or lack of built-in fail safes for when things do go catastrophically or fatally wrong.
When the argument returns back to their designer, we see that, if the intelligence of this being stands, and it intentionally made all these flaws, then God is an abominably evil designer.
If it lacks intelligence to implement creation properly or repair it quickly when it falls apart then God is an incompetent bumbling designer.
Lastly, if the 'loving designer' premise still stands, then the being simply lacks the power and foresight to anticipate error and so God is inept and impotent, or the perfect god has an 'inherent flaw' within its own character its not even aware of, and that is, its inability to recognise mistakes, irregularities and oversights appearing in its creation. Like a mother who cannot 'see' the abnormalities or deformities with her child because she loves him/her too much.
This concept of God cannot comprehend error, all of which points back to stupid design, either by intent or blunder.
