For believers of intelligent design: Do you believe in the "banana argument"?

Question

Or do you think it undermines relevent argument for the theory of intelligent design?

Or do you think it is just an over-hyped youtube video that isn't even a blip on the radar overall?

Any answers in between are also appreciated. I don't want to limit you to believing it or thinking it is dumb or embarassing.

Here's the argument in case you aren't familiar with it:

Note that the banana:

1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward content:

Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.

1. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
2. Is perforated on wrapper
3. Bio-degradable wrapper
4. Is shaped for human mouth
5. Has a point at top for ease of entry
6. Is pleasing to taste buds
7. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

Buddhamonkeyboy, I had the same basic thoughts, except with pineappples. Here's your "coconut theory," but with the much tastier (and thereby superior) pineapple:

1. Is shaped for human hand (No: Unless you have elephantitis)
2. Has non-slip surface (Yes: A non-slip thorny pain inducing surface)
3. Has outward indicators of inward content: (I would expect a bag of thorns looking at a pineapple, not sweet sweet goodness)
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late. (NO: Brown, brown, brown)
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper (NO: Have you ever tried to open a pineapple with your bare hands?!)
5. Is perforated on wrapper (NO: Will cut you before you cut it)
6. Bio-degradable wrapper (--:Is this really supposed to be a point? Babies have a biodegradable wrapper. )
7. Is shaped for human mouth (NO: If a human was 50 feet tall)
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry (NO: Has funny leaves at top belying the true difficulty of opening it)
9. Is pleasing to taste buds (YES: Oh yeah)
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy (NO: Is rounded and squishy to make biting into it a huge mess... a huge tasty mess)
2 for 10

Answer 1

bananas are the perfect food
but i'd say apes evolved to live in a certain environment, and to be able to see colours well, so that they could see what to eat, and whether it was probably ready to eat or not; or safe to eat or not. and that apes hands developed to be able to hold certain objects better than others. bananas are a lot like tree branches, or even ape's limbs. which apes would hold.

all points could be argued as purely coincidental. or a matter of human perception.

however here's my answer to each point ~
1. there is not a 'tab' really on a banana.
2. plants depend on animals to eat their fruit and disperse the seeds. may be it evolved this way to be eaten easier. may be not. maybe the skin is to protect the inner fruit until a certain time.
3. well, that's evident, and arguable for most fruits. perhaps all. i can't think of a fruit without a biodegradable wrapper.
4. possibly coincidence. likely tree evolved to have fruit that was easy to eat. unsure of how much the modern banana fruit has been cultivated by humans to be a certain shape and size and colour. but i am sure it has been cultivated with the purpose of making it yield more fruit and be more appealing to humans.
5. inaccurate. there are two points of 'entry' as far as our perception. the banana has two ends. that they are points of entry is based on our own perception.
6. our taste evolved so we could tell what was good to eat.
7. perception. it could be curved 'away' from our face.

i'm sure that the types of banana that we eat come from highly cultivated banana plants, and a banana plant that yields the same shape bananas as the 'parent' plant will not grow from putting a cultivated banana or its seeds in the ground . so that's high cultivation by man. not by god. or any supreme being, or 'evolution'.

Answer 2

Banana Intelligent Design

Answer 3

For every Banana, there's also a Coconut:

1. No tab for removal of wrapper. Wrapper damned near impossible to get through. Wrap rage in waiting.
2. Once the wrapper is off, there's a hard shell that requires tools to deal with.
3. No outward indicator of readiness for consumption.
4. Not shaped for human mouth.
5. No place that facilitates ease of entry.
6. Much disagreement about whether it is pleasing to the tastebuds.
7. Very difficult to eat.

Of course both are tropical fruits and not "designed" to flourish where most of the world's population is, thus requiring us to use our own intelligence to transport from banana/coconut plant in the tropics to mouths in Europe and North America. More like Moronic Design that we've had to use our own intelligence to overcome.

Answer 4

definite, I do, and so do many others. The atheist has been an exception in each and every society (the information of it is modern in all modern and historical civilizations). Even now in united statesa., whilst atheism is so in trend, it’s nonetheless only approximately 10% of the inhabitants. it form of feels that Blaise Pascal became acceptable: “there's a God formed vacuum in the middle of each and every guy which won't be able to be crammed by potential of any created ingredient...” That lots of societies have independently come to religious concept calls for a proof. the place did this deep prefer for God in the human coronary heart come from? Oh, and that's the main spectacular definition of sensible layout; it says not something of who the author is and how he/she/it/they did it. sensible layout (strictly speaking) encompasses each and every "creation" tale, even extraterrestrial beings seeding existence in the international (directed panspermia). Theistic evolution easily suits below that umbrella besides (the author used evolution to create). there are a number of id advocates who have confidence in elementary descent (they only have confidence it became directed). And that is not each and every thing, yet only "specific valuable factors of the universe and of residing issues..."

Answer 5

I don't think it has anything to do with anything.

Today I as reading about the Scientific communities infighting between those who believe Neaderthal and Sapiens met and mated and those who beleive Neaderthal were exitinct before the Sapiens and the two never met.

So, if there can be a dozen valid views of Evolution, what is wrong with adding Intellegent Design to the mix as just another point of view.

Answer 6

You call THAT an argument for I.D.? This is somewhat similar to , "If monkeys evolved into humans, why are there still monkeys?" I think it undermines relevant argument for the theory of intelligent design.

But I.D. is not really a scientific theory; it's a hypothesis (just like macro-evolution).

Answer 7

Ray Comfort and the rest of the WOTM gang are the most ridiculous people on earth. I listen to their podcast when I'm in need of a good laugh.

Answer 8

I LOVE the banana argument.

It also fits into various other body orifices, does that mean God intended us to stick it in there as well?

Answer 9

It's really a bit of an embarassment for ID. It's a godsend for those who oppose it to see them resorting to such ludicrous arguments.

Answer 10

look at nuts.
God created nuts perfectly for our mouths.
did you know that peanut butter also proves the existence of God.
Bless God for giving us proof through his bananas
God Bless