<Note: I attempted to post this to both a.a. and talk.origins, but that post
didn't seem to go through for some reason. So I'm only posting it here to a.a.
to see if that has anything to do with it. So if this shows up twice here in
a.a., I apologize in advance>
ID & other myth advocates are constantly saying how life in general -
and the human body in particular - is so complex that it couldn't possibly have
come from any source other than an intelligent designer. Anyone who knows
anything meaningful about biology knows that this is false, of course. But in
the interest of taking that conversation one step further, I decided to pose
this scenario:
Suppose ID is true and the old designer is being left go "for personal
reasons". You're picked to take over, and are told you can make any changes you
want to the blueprints of any prior design - the only thing is, you cannot
create any new functions in an organism or take any old functions away. The
organism you are redesigning must be able to perform precisely the same
functions in precisely the same environments that it did prior to your upgrades.
Your changes can only affect its efficiency, not the fundamental "role" it plays
in its environment.
Primarily, I'm interested to know how some of you would streamline the
"human" design. But any other organism in nature would make for interesting and
relevant speculation as well, since the ID advocates generally claim that the
entire setup was designed to function as it does with everything having a unique
and separate "purpose" (as opposed to merely being able to fit into an open
evolutionary niche).
C'mon, let's take this lame old excuse for an argument - "Intelligent
Design" - and put it through its paces! Let's show them just how woefully
inadequate their "designer" really would have to be were it to exist!
As ever, just curious.... ;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
aa#88
BAAWA Knight
"One seldom fully hears what one is only ever told."
.
|
