Evidence for God from Science

Yesterday I saw on TV the Minister for scientific research in my country.
He was asked if we came to existence by Design or by chaos.

His answer was very interesting...

He more or less said:

If all the world were from Chaos.. hey that is a miracolous!
If it were from design.. well it would be really badly designed!

I think I could agree.
Comments?


I remember when I was attending high-school I was attending religion class and I was asked about "the problem of the evil"
I stared the teacher and asked "which problem she was referring to"
It was so obvious to her and so mianingless to me that we spent half an hour to understand eachother.

Extinction is a problem from bad design.
Our eyes (with nerved upon retina) are bad design.
I could list dozens...

angel wrote:Yesterday I saw on TV the Minister for scientific research in my country.
He was asked if we came to existence by Design or by chaos.

His answer was very interesting...

He more or less said:

If all the world were from Chaos.. hey that is a miracolous!
If it were from design.. well it would be really badly designed!

I think I could agree.
Comments?


I remember when I was attending high-school I was attending religion class and I was asked about "the problem of the evil"
I stared the teacher and asked "which problem she was referring to"
It was so obvious to her and so mianingless to me that we spent half an hour to understand eachother.

Extinction is a problem from bad design.
Our eyes (with nerved upon retina) are bad design.
I could list dozens...

Let me get this straight: If any kind of intelligence is displayed then it must be a bad design because it's imperfect, but if it came by chance then it's a miracle?

That is by far the stupidest, most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life. Please note that I did not design the preceding words, they just sprung up by chance (it must be a miracle). So please don't come crying to me that I insulted you in any way.

Angel, first of all define perfect, define what perfect design means to you. I like to add that perfect design is subject to mere opinion... even if it is scientific. I would also like to add that purposeful design does not have to be perfect. Your implying a free from distortion concept. This concept applied will only take away the free will of the inidividual from nature. Comparing biological design means also comparing the external environment. Free from distortion will only limit the influence from the external environment. Such as for example: your in a jail cell, your free from everyone and everyone is free from you...in effect there is no effect.. So this leads to free-will and decision making processes, would we have any?

I think if we were perfect we would have to have superpowers or god-like powers, jumping off a cliff, getting hit by a car or a rock etc....and not having a scratch on you. Did God (the designer) create us to be bigger then God himself, atleast thats not the God of the bible. The bible indicates that we are not perfect, that we have weaknesses, that this world we see is not perfect.

Not being perfect according to you or any other misinformed person does not mean that it wasn't designed or that design wasn't one of the factors involved.

And since you cannot define perfect design Angel, then making the comments "we are badly designed" will only make you look stupider (not that you are stupid, you not).

And I agree with byblos, making the claim that it is miraculous with chaos but badly designed with a designer is like cancelling each statement out against one another but an ideologically driven attack nevertheless.

By the way Angel, have you yourself ever actually designed anything?

angel wrote:Extinction is a problem from bad design.
Our eyes (with nerved upon retina) are bad design.
I could list dozens...

Nonsense. See Bad Design in the Human Eye?

godslanguage wrote:Angel, first of all define perfect, define what perfect design means to you. I like to add that perfect design is subject to mere opinion

Yes how do we measure perfection? To do so we would need to know intent, and then see how closely the end product came to the original plan.

Bad design does not indicate that there was no design.

I agree with Bgood that the design is based on intent.

This also leads to another question,take for example: lets say x design is imperfect, we see that its unperfect, that it has flaws. For example, lets say that a computer looks perfectly designed, functions perfectly, is it a perfect design? Hmmm, but is it perfect....the answer is no. Severe limitations from external factors such as a flood...therefore its not perfect like I have already assumed. But does y which represent intent cannot equal z which is purposeful design. The computer seems to have a purpose, it has design and it has limitations at the same time, its own limitations...but it was definetely designed.

Turgonian wrote:

angel wrote:Extinction is a problem from bad design.
Our eyes (with nerved upon retina) are bad design.
I could list dozens...

Nonsense. See Bad Design in the Human Eye?

Sorry Turgonian this argument is not convincing.

The argument you link to unecessarily limits the discussion to the current design of the eye. If one were to start from scratch there would be no need to address issues such as over heating and damage repair, as these issues are a result of current design.

If the light sensing organs are pointed at the light source (thus the supporting tissue would be behind it) then less light is required to enter the eye itself in order to get the same clarity. Perhaps the cornea is modified or the pupil is even smaller. This in turn will reduce the likelyhood of damage and also reduce the heat thus reducing the need for such active blood vessels. In addition this would remove the blind spots and the chances for retinal tears.

In all the possible "layouts" there are advantages and drawbacks. The fact that the eye has so many components included to cover design related flaws is actually best explained by modification of design over time ie evolution.

godslanguage wrote:I agree with Bgood that the design is based on intent.

This also leads to another question,take for example: lets say x design is imperfect, we see that its unperfect, that it has flaws. For example, lets say that a computer looks perfectly designed, functions perfectly, is it a perfect design? Hmmm, but is it perfect....the answer is no. Severe limitations from external factors such as a flood...therefore its not perfect like I have already assumed. But does y which represent intent cannot equal z which is purposeful design. The computer seems to have a purpose, it has design and it has limitations at the same time, its own limitations...but it was definetely designed.

What is your definition of designed here?
By design do you mean modifications over time to meet certain criteria?

Byblos wrote:Let me get this straight: If any kind of intelligence is displayed then it must be a bad design because it's imperfect, but if it came by chance then it's a miracle?

This is an excellent point Bylos... Also the word "chaos" by it's very definition means "a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order." In other words, according to Angel chaos = order = miracles..

Bgood wrote:The argument you link to unecessarily limits the discussion to the current design of the eye. If one were to start from scratch there would be no need to address issues such as over heating and damage repair, as these issues are a result of current design.

I think Turgy understands the argument better than you perceive.. If we were to start from "scratch" you don't even have a body or an eye or anything to modify, over heat, or repair to begin with..

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

godslanguage wrote:I agree with Bgood that the design is based on intent.

This also leads to another question,take for example: lets say x design is imperfect, we see that its unperfect, that it has flaws. For example, lets say that a computer looks perfectly designed, functions perfectly, is it a perfect design? Hmmm, but is it perfect....the answer is no. Severe limitations from external factors such as a flood...therefore its not perfect like I have already assumed. But does y which represent intent cannot equal z which is purposeful design. The computer seems to have a purpose, it has design and it has limitations at the same time, its own limitations...but it was definetely designed.

What is your definition of designed here?
By design do you mean modifications over time to meet certain criteria?

What do you think godslanguage is implying here Bgood? Even if it had flaws it is still a computer.. You don't see that? Ever see a computer assemble itself without a maker or a set of instructions?

Bgood, what kind of design do you think I'm talking about here? Obviously I'm not going by the darwinian standard that evolution creates the "what only appears to be designed but is not really designed".

Design with modification sounds okay... I don't see the issue with that since design is all about pushing forward with intent (just like you mentioned), a purposeful design incorporates this.

godslanguage wrote:Bgood, what kind of design do you think I'm talking about here? Obviously I'm not going by the darwinian standard that evolution creates the "what only appears to be designed but is not really designed".

Design with modification sounds okay... I don't see the issue with that since design is all about pushing forward with intent (just like you mentioned), a purposeful design incorporates this.

I mentioned intent when attepting to define perfection.
If design is a process in which modification/improvements occur over time. Then design requires a method of modification and a method of testing. Am I correct?

In other words the computer has improved in design incrementally as people have made modifications engineers have tested the changes and the market has selected from the available products.
Correct?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

godslanguage wrote:Bgood, what kind of design do you think I'm talking about here? Obviously I'm not going by the darwinian standard that evolution creates the "what only appears to be designed but is not really designed".

Design with modification sounds okay... I don't see the issue with that since design is all about pushing forward with intent (just like you mentioned), a purposeful design incorporates this.

I mentioned intent when attepting to define perfection.
If design is a process in which modification/improvements occur over time. Then design requires a method of modification and a method of testing. Am I correct?

In other words the computer has improved in design incrementally as people have made modifications and the market has tested the feasibility.
Correct?

Do you see mere intent as attempting to define perfection? Intent is only the first step, this requires the first set of actions, "perfection" is based on
definining the previous set of functions and acquiring new functions or modifying pre-existing functions leading and essentially pointing to a specific purpose. But like I said...you can't really define perfection. Perfection is only an illusion according to a particular someone...however, design is real and is not an illusion.

What do you think about when it comes to the obvious vs the evident? Which of the two do you think are more reasonable to substantiate conclusions than the other?

Gman wrote:I think Turgy understands the argument better than you perceive.. If we were to start from "scratch" you don't even have a body or an eye or anything to modify, over heat, or repair to begin with..

Thanks for the defence, Gman, but actually I don't understand science. I only know how to link.

Turgonian wrote:

Gman wrote:I think Turgy understands the argument better than you perceive.. If we were to start from "scratch" you don't even have a body or an eye or anything to modify, over heat, or repair to begin with..

Thanks for the defence, Gman, but actually I don't understand science. I only know how to link.

Ah come on now... Don't be bashful... You probably know more than you think...