If there is an Intelligent Designer...?

Question

Why does he act like a tinkerer, rather than an intelligent engineer?

Mutations which have an effect on the individual are usually harmful. Also, if you look at humans, there are many examples of poor design but I'll give one: the spine. It was originally designed to act as an arch, and is not very good at holding all the weight of our upper body. Hence all the people with lower back problems.

The eye did not come about at once; it was a gradual process, whose different stages we see in other forms of life.

Answer 1

Because that ''intelligent designer'' is man.

It's the human brain that has created that ''intelligent designer,'' as to why we and the things around us are not ''perfect'' is also a matter of our human brain, since we created the concept of ''perfection''. The concept of perfection is merely a result of language. In nature there's no perfection or imperfection, there's no bad or good, wrong or correct.... nature just is.

Answer 2

You don't think that lower back [roblems have nothing to do with being overweight? Or over stressed? Man was designed to commune with God and enjoy the Garden of Eden. The pain that we have is a result of the Si Nature in mankind.
As for the eye and anything alse. There are certain limits on which it will grow or do. It can only do what information it has in it's genetics. We have yet witnessed an elephant with the tail of a mule, or a cow with feathers etc. We never lose information, it stays in the gene pool until it becomes the dominant trait due to cross breeding.

Answer 3

Oh my goodness!
The Behe conclusion is that the Intelligent Designer(s) acted a long long LONG time ago, and their organisms, after the initial implementation phase, were subject to mutation! Cool, huh?

The Dawkins conclusion is that prior to us, there were no Intelligent Designer(s).

Answer 4

“Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding..." - Job 38

“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by Somebody.” - Wernher von Braun

Answer 5

Yes.
Take any simple thing around us and ponder.
Our hands and fingers.
Can the best designer or engineer around fabricate them ?
Take a simple leaf.
Think how intricate is the design and complicated the way it gets it nutrients.
Even the horrible housefly.
Can the best of us manufacture something like that ?
Et infinitum....the list goes on.
All these just happen by chance?
No way !
There must be a Super Intelligent Designer !

Answer 6

Tinkerer? You must be kidding. He is infinitely more intelligent than any 10 million engineers. No one can reproduce the human eyeball with all the super computers in the universe. He designed it. Belief in evolution is absurd. Come to Christ.

Answer 7

think of it this way- wouldn't you want to believe that you were intelligently designed instead of coming from a mutation. God , is the intelligent designer- so praise Him for your life!

Answer 8

Are you feeling like Mr. Potato Head?

Answer 9

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

Answer 10

Tell ya what, Dude: you engineer something as simple as an amoeba and then get back to me with that question.