Rick, you said:

I mean, it's scarcely possible that anyone who ever took a human anatomy class really believes that we were designed by an intelligent creator.

which sound a lot like faith and science are incompatible. But, if you meant to distinguish the particular foolishness of ID, then I'm on board. I'm not Catholic, but when the Vatican comes out says ID isn't science you'd think that would be the end of it. Sorry that I misunderstood.

It's entirely possible to believe in a creator without believing stupid things, as numerous Buffistas have demonstrated over and over.

Yup. It's all the stupid arguments set forth to prove creationism that make it that much more difficult to take religion seriously.

Another example of "questionable design" is our esophagus. You could argue that it wasn't really the best idea to have the esophagus be a passage for both food to the stomach and air to the lungs; however, for most animals it works OK. But because we have vocal cords, things are moved around for us humans, making us much more succeptible to choking - which begs the question: if there's a Creator, why didn't He redesign us with a separate passage for air and food? But under evolution, once evolution goes down a certain path (one esophagus) it's unlikely for things to be radically redesigned. So we gotta live with a modification of a previous design that's kinda' a compromise....

Another example of "questionable design" is our esophagus. You could argue that it wasn't really the best idea to have the esophagus be a passage for both food to the stomach and air to the lungs; however, for most animals it works OK.

Or, to paraphrase Woody Allen in a scene he eventually cut from "Annie Hall", where he meets God at the beginning of time: "Don't put the sexual organs too close to the excratory ones. It will only cause problems later on."

I'm not Catholic, but when the Vatican comes out says ID isn't science you'd think that would be the end of it.

Well, a lot the people who seem to tout ID most fervently don't think much of Catholics, either.

I mean, if we were designed so intelligently, why do we need a pharmaceutical industry?

In the phrase "intelligent design," I suppose I don't consider "intelligent" to mean "perfect."

don’t these things seem more consistent with a gradual and imperfect process of evolution, a process that is constrained by its history, than they are with an a priori design by a supreme being?

I also think that, although God created the world with the intent of evolution, it was not with the intent of *perfect* evolution.

The next logical question is *why* weren't we created as perfect beings, or with the intent of perfect evolution? But that question takes us straight out of science and into religious faith -- we weren't designed to be perfect, and evolution wasn't designed to turn us into perfect beings, because only God is perfect.

(Though I suppose that, if one believes that an intelligent creator god made the universe and set evolution in motion, that belief right there has already entangled science and faith far too much.)

IT DOESN'T BEG THE QUESTION

hee. sorry.

IT DOESN'T BEG THE QUESTION

I never even use this phrase anymore. That and "moot." I've read dueling popular-vs.-precise definitions of each so many times that I just avoid them altogether out of a pathetic certainty that no matter how I say them I'm still going to fuck up.

The next logical question is *why* weren't we created as perfect beings, or with the intent of perfect evolution?

Maybe we aren't the final product of the plan.

The question I always think of in ID is, "Who designed the designer?"

IT DOESN'T BEG THE QUESTION

Well, that's become fairly standard usage of the phrase. But yeah, technically not correct. I can't think of another simple way to convey, "which leads us to the logical question" or somesuch.

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.

[link]

Huh.

That and "moot."

What's the popular usage of "moot"? I've heard far too many people substitute "mute" for "moot," which earns them a hearty bitchslap (even if it's just in my mind), but, when I *do* hear "moot" used, it's always used correctly.

t edit I mean, even *Rick Springfield* knew the right way to use it....