If intelligent design is real, why do men have nipples?

Seriously, before anyone goes all ballistic on whether or not God is real or not, I just kinda want to talk about intelligent design.

Because I do believe in God. I choose to believe and so I do. I also don't believe that God has human being type thinking or decision-making, meaning, I don't think God is some sort of 'being' that sits around heaven thinking stuff up and creating. I think God is more like the Force, at least that's what I have been taught with my Hindu upbringing.

However, I believe in evolution. And I think evolution disproves an intelligent design theory, because human beings design isn't necessarily intelligent.

Few questions:

Why would men have nipples? There is no reason for a man to have nipples. I mean, sure, it's got the nerves and the stimulation and they feel good, but seriously, nipples seem like they have no place on a man.

Ditto for the appendix. I mean, that's why we call it hte appendix, right? What the heck is the use of having a big bag of poisen in our bodies?

And how about ATP production? The krebs and other bla bla bla biology cycles are terribly inefficient, if "God" was creating this cell structure he could have done away with a lot of the steps.

So what do you all think? Do you really believe God 'intelligently designed' us, or that God looks like a man? I have a hard time believing God's body is as inefficient as ours. (EDIT: Just trying to get across that our bodies are inherently wasteful, like if you had the fuel line of a car wrap around the car twice before it went anywhere.)

No, I think it's the good old evolution. God willed life into existance and let it go from there.

That's my take.

Also, try not to get bogged down on whether or not there is or isn't a god, just on why you do or don't believe in intelligent design.

 

So what do you all think? Do you really believe God 'intelligently designed' us, that God looks like a man? I have a hard time believing God's body is as inefficient as ours.

The idea that God has a physical body is not part of "intelligent design." This is a strawman.

 

Yeah, fine, so what, that was a throwaway sentence, so your own comment is kind of a strawman of its own!

 

What about that bit in Genesis about 'made man in his image'?

 

Yeah, fine, so what, that was a throwaway sentence, so your own comment is kind of a strawman of its own!

Sorry, but that throwaway sentence implied that you think/thought that "God 'intelligently designed' us" and "God looks like a man" were synonymous.

Pointing out an error like that isn't itself a strawman.


Stackpole, most Christian theologians believe that God's "image" is a reference to us having free will, the ability to reason, and eternal souls.

If you want to assume an interpretation that has not been part of mainstream Christianity for any of its two-millenia history, be my guest. But don't then attach the idea to Christianity.

 

That's a pretty 'liberal' interpretation of the bible there Bubba.

But again, I am not looking at specific religion so much as intelligent design. I think it's bunk, it's a pseudo-science.

But if people want it taught in schools, they should be able to articulate and defend it.

 

Bubba_the_Genius posted on 2/7/05 2:02pm

---

The idea that God has a physical body is not part of "intelligent design." This is a strawman.
[hr][/blockquote]
I don't know that it's totally unrelated, as the Bible is one common justification for intelligent design, and the Bible tells us that "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26, KJV). Particularly since man had at this point no knowledge of good and evil (reducing the likelihood that this verse is suggesting a temperamental correllation), that verse could easily be interpreted as saying man's physical body is based upon God's, and thus that God has a physical body. If the creation story is going to be so strictly interpreted as to discount the possibility of evolution entirely (as most creationists I know do), then the interpretation of this point can certainly come into play. Certainly, that's a narrow aspect of the intelligent design discussion approached only from one angle, but it's not unrelated.


Me, I find the idea of a direct creation most unlikely. For starters there are all the ineffeciencies and peculiarities ofo design; surely someone starting from the ground up, with infinite power at his disposal, could come up with a better body than this.

My chief objection, though, is not that; it's philosophical. For starters, I tend to think that God is largely non-interventionist, at least physically. However, if one acknowledges (as I do) that the universe stems from God, then at some point he must have been involved with the physical (though how and how directly is something difficult to define). It's just that to intervene in this way, to make things in this way, would seem to me pointless, wasteful, and uncharacteristic of God. He had just created a universe with a variety of laws causing raw particles to interact in certain ways. I would think if life was one of God's desired ends for the universe, it would have been made from the ground up to encourage it, to make it inevitable. To make a universe, to give it laws and building blocks capable of producing life, and then to bypass them all and do it by brute force would be supremely inelegant. It would be like laboring to write a program that would translate HTML documents to the proper formatting on the computer screen, then receiving a document you wished to present, translating the characters to hexadecimal and putting each pixel up manually via a very complicated assembly program. It just doesn't make sense to me that thte nature of the just-created universe was not put to use, that God bypassed all his own work. This kind of inelegance in design of a system isn't something I'd expect in a deity.

-Paul

 

God made us in his image.
But God is not physical.
It means that we can think, and feel, like God does.

And God created us THROUGH EVOLUTION. God's laws for the physical universe are the laws of physics.

God and Science can and do coexist. God is the WHO, the universe is the WHAT, love is the WHY, science is the HOW. When will people realize this????

 

So gays will know what they are missing...

J/K

 

McCartney:

That's a pretty 'liberal' interpretation of the bible there Bubba.

I suppose it's "liberal" to interpret the 23rd Psalm to mean that God isn't a literal shepherd? Is it "liberal" to conclude Jesus wasn't being literal when He called us "salt" and Himself a "vine"?

I'm running late for class, so I won't prove it now, but the interpretation I gave you is representative of mainstream Christianity. It is how Christians have reconciled this verse to other Scripture that asserts that God has no body.

It's silly to attempt to goad me into changing my belief on Genesis 1:27 by calling the ORTHODOX INTERPRETATION "liberal."


But again, I am not looking at specific religion so much as intelligent design. I think it's bunk, it's a pseudo-science.

But if people want it taught in schools, they should be able to articulate and defend it.

I agree that those who believe in intelligent design should be able to defend it. Not all Christians do believe it. It's not a necessary tenet of Christianity. If I had to guess, I'd wager against it being true, though I don't think my faith hinges on my being right.

But I frankly don't think you understand the theory enough to render any sound judgment on it. Even if I excuse your "throwaway" line, I don't see that you understand the theory.

The theory does not assert that every aspect of human physiology is perfectly intelligent in its design: it's simply that human physiology was designed by an intelligent being.

You wrote, "The krebs and other bla bla bla biology cycles are terribly inefficient, if 'God' was creating this cell structure he could have done away with a lot of the steps."

By this logic, should we assume that the Ford Model T was the result of evolution? After all, much of its design is "terribly inefficient" compared to modern automotive design.


What you're arguing against isn't just "intelligent design." You're arguing against an idea that arises from an amalgam of theological principles:

(1) "Intelligent design," that human physiology was the direct result of the work of the planning of an intelligent being.

(2) Omniscience, that the being knows all things.

(3) Ominpotence, that the being can do all things.

(4) A sort of completeness that says this being's designs must bring all his omniscience and omnipotence to bear on every design he crafts.

(5) The belief that the universe is exactly as this being intended.

Now, (2) and (3) are central tenets of Christianity, but (4) is not -- though I admit that (4) is aesthetically pleasing, that one would want an omniscient and omnipotent being to build things were all the pieces fit.

But here's the catch: (5) is absolutely denied by Christianity. Instead we assert that the universe is not what God intended, that it is fallen. Thus, it's possible that the appendix had a function before the Fall, and it's possible that metabolic cycles were also perfectly efficient before the Fall.

It seems to me that arguing against a theory of "Intelligent Design-Plus" -- plus four other beliefs, one of which Christianity outright denies.

It doesn't seem that your complaint has any bearing on (1), on "intelligent design" itself.

 

Tion_Meddon posted on 2/7/05 2:35pm

---

God and Science can and do coexist. God is the WHO, the universe is the WHAT, love is the WHY, science is the HOW. When will people realize this????
[hr][/blockquote]
That's really well-stated. I like that.

[blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=J-Rod][b]J-Rod[/b][/link] [b]posted on 2/7/05 2:38pm[/b][hr] So gays will know what they are missing...

J/K
[hr][/blockquote]
And lesbians can have twice the fun? [face_silly][face_wink][face_batting]

-Paul

 

I was attempting to goad you, but I would never even try to change the beliefs of someone like YOU Bubba! I try to LEARN from people like you, because I am interested in your point of view. Generally, people like you seem to have little interest or use for other points of view, I would never try to force you to learn or think about one.

Anyway, this is a sidetrack argument, but it seems clear that God was using words like shepard and 'salt' as metaphors in that statement. However, if God created man in his own image, while it can be seen as a metaphor, it's stretching it.

You must see the difference. The idea of a shepard or the relation of salt is a clearly understood metaphor in language. I'm not saying that the image of god being god's free will is WRONG, I am just saying it's a liberal interpretation.

Kind of like reading the 4th amendment as including a right to privacy. (That's a double-liberal deal there, since it's a liberal interpretation AND it's a liberal interpretation!)

And Bubba, you can have a discusison without being confrontational. Just letting you know.

EDIT:


By this logic, should we assume that the Ford Model T was the result of evolution? After all, much of its design is "terribly inefficient" compared to modern automotive design

Using a liberal interpretation Bubbba, yes!, the Ford Model T was the result of evolution. The technology didn't just pop out from out of nowhere, the engineers who designed the car took technology to the next level. And then newer car engineers took that work and built upon it, making it better, more efficient, and the designs evolved over time to suit whether, family, and a host of other conditions. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Furthermore, to try another argument, was the Model T designed by GOD!?!?!? Man is fallible, makes mistakes, nature is about survival, but doesn't God possess infinite knowledge?

Again, this isn't about whether God exists, but whether intelligent design is real. What scientific evidence is there to show that God designed man? That there was a specific plan?

The human body evolving makes sense given the evidence. WHat is the evidence to prove intelligent design?

 

That's what intelligent design means? Am I believing in intelligent design when I say that God created the universe, set up its laws, etc. but did not (directly at least) create the physical attributes of humans or any species?

 

Yomin_Carr posted on 2/7/05 3:18pm

---

That's what intelligent design means? Am I believing in intelligent design when I say that God created the universe, set up its laws, etc. but did not (directly at least) create the physical attributes of humans or any species? [face_confused]
[hr][/blockquote]
No, that's what intelligent design (as being used in this thread) does not mean. In most contexts, intelligent design wants to say that some intelligent being or beings (maybe God, maybe aliens, just something) purposefully and directly designed humans. At least, that's the assumption I've been operating under. I believe in the same sort of "intelligent design" that you do, which can reasonably be called intelligent design, just isn't in most contexts (as you would seldom call a death penalty opponent "pro-life," although it would be valid to do so).

-Paul

 

I see, thanks.

 

Ok, so I just read part of Bubba's thread, and D-Paul's stuff.

I am talking about the intelligent design of human beings by God, since that is the one theory the extremists want taught in schools alongside legitemate theory evolution.

Bubba, I never argued the unvierse is exactly the way god wanted it, hence my believe that God isn't a being that sits around and plans stuff up. So you are pretty wrong on that one, I don't see how I've channeled #5.

But anway, I thought it was obvious, I was talking about DIVINE intelligent desegin, not alien or another form of it.

 

What makes humans human, is not the body, it is consciousness. So if we are the image of God, it is consciousness that is the issue, and not the body.

 

Right, I accept that Christians liberally interpret this particular line. Or perhaps it's just a problem with the translation, since every definition of image I know of involves something you can look at.

 

Yes, we cannot 'see' consciousness, like God?

 

McCartney, you believe in a god? why? it is superflous. we have nipples via evolution, as you say. god is really an unnecessary step. plus he makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Ah, whatever. If you read my first post, you'll see my idea of what god is differs greatly from what most people believe, ie. God is in heaven and he thinks about you and has thoughts and a conscious will.

I don't even necessarily believe God is conscious in the same way you or I am.

But again, this is about whether the higher power intelligently DESEIGNED humans, or whether we just evolved.

 

Perhaps, life was designed to evolve.

 

They are vestigial structures and males, please lets give evolution a bit more time here.

-Seldon

 

Maybe it's just an aesthetic purpose. Or maybe it has a purpose we don't yet know. Does it matter? Is this really supposed to be a serious question?

 

McCartney:

The shortness in my last post was partially due to my lack of time: that explains my post, but it doesn't excuse it, and I apologize.

On the side issue of the "image of God," I think whether an interpretation is liberal should be determined by how orthodox Christianity has interpreted a passage. So far as I know, it has never taken "image of God" literally.

Heck, there seems to be quite a bit of metaphor in Genesis, regardless of how literally one interprets the six days. In 1:16, God created the sun and moon to "rule" the day and night, respectively, but that sort of personification has not been taken by mainstream Christianity to imply that the sun and the moon are actual persons/beings/gods.


Now, returning to the main issue, allow me to defer on the "Model T" comparison to an actual subscriber of "intelligent design":

Often critics of Intelligent Design fall prey to the Optimal Design straw man which basically says that the establishment of less than optimal (or perfect) design invalidates Intelligent Design Theory. While Optimal Design implies Intelligent Design, the reverse is not true. There are many designs that are not perfect but fulfill the role and desires of the designer. Consider the perfect automobile, then consider the car that you drive back and forth to work. It is quite clear that although your car is not the optimal design for an automobile that your car is the result of intention and intelligence.

The key here is that even poor designs usually show the signature of intelligent causation. There is indeed a chasm between what we can expect chance to do versus what even basic intelligence can produce. [link]

Now, not only does this writer make clear that he thinks the automobile emerged from a form of "intelligent design" -- in that case, the intelligent designer was a human -- the writer also blasts your central thesis in this thread.