things our designer could have designed but didn't
Imagine being able to go an entire multi-century lifetime and only needing to drink a few spoonfuls of water every month or two and never needing to sleep! Imagine being able roll around on our paved highways without a need for fossil fuels! Imagine being able to reproduce without the embarrassing, possibly sinful, and suspiciously enjoyable activities that often accompany sex! These are all things we COULD have been able to do had our designer decided, in his wisdom, to give us metabolisms powered by fusion reactions, had he decided we might get around better with wheels, and had he made it possible to exchange genetic information in the form of a clean, crisp, compact flash card. Surely the designer knew there would come a day when we would have paved over more than a quarter of the developed world, a time when wheels would prove far more useful than legs (which seem to me, at least, an unnecessary red herring likely to tempt the foolish into thinking we bear a relationship to animals). He also knew about how making sex pleasurable would make it into a worrisome obsession. And he surely must have had the lowdown on how fusion works, since this is how he chose to power the stars. The question then is: why did our designer, who surely had special plans for us, design us to be like nothing so much as hyper-intelligent apes? My guess is that either there was a little designer humor going on here (and don't discount the idea! How else to explain the appearance of the Star Nosed Mole?) Another possibility is that the idea was to give us a little humility along with our gifts. But this is an explanation I could never accept because, after all is said and done, I do not feel I am the least bit similar to any lowly soulless animal. (That is, I do not feel humble - this is partly reflected in my faith in Intelligent Design - a science that provides some hope for the specialness of humans in the world.)
As for wheels, the fact that the designer didn't give them to any creature at all suggests that they might have been a foreign concept to him. I know this sounds sacreligious, but I intend it with only the most loving respect for the designer. Perhaps in the place where the designer designs, there is no occasion for wheels, and it took OUR world for wheels to become a necessity. Wheels might be an emergent thing that comes with DESIGNED life, not with DESIGNER life.
You know, if you follow this logic to where it leads, it implies a vaguely sadistic designer, not exactly the kind of guy with which I'd want to play a round of golf! I'm very creeped out right now. Could it be that ID will let us in on a very scary truth behind the scrim, like waking up in a pod from having been asleep in the Matrix? NOOOOOooooooooooooo...........
Why if God is perfect ..... would He design us (and other life as well) with the ability, and even a propensity, for lust, lying, and harming others. Why the useless vestigial organs, an optical system that requires correction and that will eventually break down, a back that goes out, diminishing brain function over time, cancer, heart disease ... And as you alluded, a requisite reproductive process that is not just pleasurable, but that can lead to sexual addiction and even abuse.
The following comments are my take on reality, based on 65 years of contemplation. Long before I was taken to a church, I felt an unmistakable presence, and it has never left me. But for others, there is doubt, and in many (if not most) cases, intellectual reflection and discourse can lead down a false pathway. Richard Dawkins' reliance on the blatantly fallacious Occam's Razor, and his illogical inferences based on it, are foundational in his disbelief in a creator/ designer/ divine overseer.
Back to the allegation of 'faulty design', frequently brought up, but really quite simple to answer, if one acknowledges a few things. Your body is not you, but rather a 'vehicle' for earthly existence. Well documented OBE's, as well as scriptures, confirm that. Consciousness is external to the brain, and there's increasing (testable) evidence of that. I repeat, you are not your DNA!
Immortality of the physical body is silly to contemplate. If humans lasted much longer, where would we put them? And as a 150 year old, what would you find new to do each day. Look at Earth as a theme park, with all of us given tenure here. Look at adversity as a condition of our existence, and evil as a polarity to good, and a logical consequence of 'free will'.
Our biologic design, which isn't perfect, is certainly optimal for our existence here. Possible motives for Theme Park Earth? Analyze yourself: Why do you make things? Do you have a pet? A child? Do you not derive pleasure from these activities, and of the role of guardianship? Now put yourself in the 'creator's' place, and view earth as a workshop of sorts, and the diversity of life as the end result of a desire to 'make things happen', and to act as guardian. If made in God's image, could there not be a parallel of motivations? Think about it.
Another possibility is that we as spirit beings, are a direct lineage of God or the angels, and may have even helped in the creation process of biologic life to add a new dimension to our existence. There are certainly many activities we can partake of that spirit beings could not. We build cars, bikes, and airplanes to extend our earthly experience. By analogy, temporal biologic life acting as an extension to a nontemporal existence could well be analogous, as in the 'Theme Park' scenario.
As for wheels, they would require bearings that would not hold up in a cellular structure. Biped functionality works just fine. Try climbing a mountain with roller blades on. As far as religiosity goes, don't fret. I sincerely believe that you're not being heretical by not embracing fundamentalist concepts, as long as you honor, respect and maintain communion with your maker.
Finally, a logical question is "Why deviate from established dogma. Why risk heresy? Why not just abide by the church doctrines fully, to be on the safe side?" To my way of thinking, taking the scientific, philosophical and empirical pathway, while praying for guidance in that pursuit, may be the only remaining way to reach skeptics, and to help to rescue them from a blind passage, and ultimately, a life devoid of meaning and true fulfillment. If that is your ultimate goal, you'll be blessed in your pursuit.
The faults you mention as well as many others might lead one to conclude that God is, at best, indifferent to our plight (and perhaps the Bible was a medieval swindle, complete with a clause cleverly-inserted - much like the one about the appointment of US Attorneys into the PATRIOT Act - allowing the post-Romans to keep eating their pork). The notion of a "perfect" and completely benign God is a relatively recent invention, a sanitized "fact" usually presented to children but generally outgrown even by fundamentalists. Certainly Aristotle didn't think the "gods" perfect and the Jewish YHWH admitted he was "jealous" (hardly a mark of perfection - it seems more like a sign of insecurity).
I don't think much is gained by starting with the supposition that God (or, on this site, the designer) was either perfect or had perfect foresight. Clearly there are flaws and compromises in biological designs; no one is disputing that. And the fact of extinction indicates that perhaps the designer designed without knowledge of how the future would play out. (Although it's POSSIBLE the designer designed dodo birds SPECIFICALLY to supply meat to Dutch and Portuguese sailors for a brief period during the late 1500s - perhaps to help them with their spreading of Christianity. This would seem to confirm that God is Christian and not Islamic - otherwise He would have let the closer-by Arabs do the extinctifying.)
I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else here. The best we can do is be open to new ideas, non-dogmatic, and bounce theories around. We're all wearing our Science Caps when we're in here and this frees us to debate, play Devil's advocate, and use other rhetorical devices. That way we can approach truth in a reasoned way, not accepting facts unquestioned from oracles and what not.
Really interesting... thanks
Quintilis, I've really enjouyed your OE blog postings. What I like about your attitude and research is that you are unafraid to go where the science leads you regardless of the conclusion.
I think you have hit on a very important question. We know that all the specified-complex / irreducibly complex objects in the universe MUST have been designed, however there is a very big difference between the objects that we design (e.g. cars, aeroplanes, cameras) and the objects that our designer has designed.
It's important to ask why man-designed objects are so different from THE designer's creations. What does this tell us about our designer? What does this tell us about our relationship with the Designer?
Let me give you a story which I think illustrates something interesting: For most of his working life my father made a living repairing cameras. Professional photographers would come to him for help with a stuck shutter or a scratched lens. As I child I marvelled at his ability to turn a dented Rolleflex into a fully working, gleaming perfect optical device.
I asked my dad why people repaired cameras when they could just go out and buy a new one. He explained that the cameras are not only expensive machines, but valuable objects with great sentimental values to their owners. He explained that owners often feel a personal bond towards their cameras, and would not be happy with a mere replacement, hence the importance of the camera repair person.
I would watch when a broken machine came in, he would consult the relevant service manual and then order the parts from the manufacturer or service-centre. Finally he would delicately strip-down and re-assemble the device leaving it as good (or sometimes better than new).
I remember that at school one day I had won a Kodak disposable plastic film-camera, and I had taken a roll of photos, when one moment I had tripped and fell damaging the camera's casing, unfortunately exposing all the film inside it. These days disposable cameras are very tough machines, but this was many years ago and the devices were poorly built and fragile.
Distraught I took it to my father and asked him to fix it. He explained to me that this was impossible. The disposable camera was a "single-use" device and the only way to get spare-parts from this machine is by breaking open (and destroying) another of it's kind. He explained that repairing these devices was practically impossible because it's designers did not care to support this. Unlike the Roleiflex which was built to last many life-times, the disposable camera was built to be thrown away once it had served it's initial purpose. And as my film had been exposed to direct sunlight there was no point in attempting any salvage.
For all it's sophistication, I think life is more like the disposable camera than the Roleiflex. Our designer has not provided us with an instruction manual, no service guide and no ready supply of spare parts. Like the disposable camera, the only way to get a spare-part is by salvaging from another of our kind, however the situation is more desperate because there is no maintenance hatch or panel that can be unbolted in order to fit a new heart. Even the best surgeon cannot perform surgery as risk-free as a camera-repair. Swapping a kidney is millions of times more complicated than exchanging a lens.
What can we infer from this? I think our designer's attitude towards us is kind of similar to how the manufacturer of disposable cameras sees his product. I know that Pro-Evolutionists will dispute this evidence, however I think the fact that the DESIGNER chose not to make us easily repairable says as much about his intent as what he did choose to build.
BobM