re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design

quote:

---

Breathing and eating involve more than just the muscles I was referring to, but in a previous post I said, "the muscles that control swallowing and opening the airway are in close proximity and work together efficiently."

---

Got it.

Still not following, though.

Your windpipe is open by default.

If we ate through a different tube we'd still need the epiglottis to cover tube when not in use.

What's changed?

Outside of not choking while eating?

quote:

---

What kind of injuries are you referring to, and why are you singling out those injuries as a means of proving that our spines are poorly designed?

---

"Back pain is a leading cause of morbidity and disability in the United States.1 It is estimated that up to 80% of people will experience low back pain at some point during their lifetimes.2,3 At any given point in time, about 26% of U.S. adults have low back pain..."

- Source

Everything from muscle strains, to herniated discs, to ligament sprain, to degenerative disc disease, to facet joint irritation, etc.

We're exactly what one would expect to see from a quadruped evolving to walk upright and not as one would expect to see as a being *DESIGNED* to walk upright.

Or, if this is a design, its that of a below average high schooler, not an all knowing being.

quote:

---

The question isn’t whether presuppositions exist. It’s whether the method constrains them.

In science, the constraint is methodological naturalism. It does not assume “there is no God.” It requires explanations to appeal to regular, testable processes because those are the only ones that can be publicly evaluated. A scientist’s personal metaphysics is separate. The mechanisms of mutation, selection, and inheritance are inferred from measurable data, not from a prior commitment to atheism. So the issue isn’t whether lenses exist. It’s whether conclusions follow from evidence under shared rules.

---

I agree that science puts a constraint on presuppositions, but it does so by constraining them to materialistic naturalism.

As I said, modern scientific thought presupposes naturalism precisely because it seeks to explain everything in nature naturally. It presupposes a natural explanation, and rejects any explanation that is supernatural, precisely because it cannot speak to the supernatural. What this does is lead all conclusions to the natural and away from any explanation that is supernatural in origin. It leads many to falsely accuse the religious of engaging in the "god of the gaps" fallacy, even if that isn't accurate, because it assumes a naturalistic explanation that precludes supernatural involvement.

So no, the data is not neutral and limiting presuppositions. Presuppositions absolutely impact how we interpret the data.

For example:
If you walk into a bathroom and see a bathtub dripping water, with a pool of water collected at the bottom, you can use the scientific method to calculate the volume of the tub, the amount of water collected, the average size of the water droplets, and the average time between drops to calculate how long it would take to fill up the tub with water if the water continues to drip at that same amount. It can also be used to calculate how long the water has been dripping and collecting in the tub by extrapolating calculations back in time. You can even repeat the calculations and tests time and time again and get the same results. You can also have any number of other scientists perform the same tests and reach the exact same conclusions. That's what science does.

However, this would change if someone walked into the bathroom and saw all these scientists taking measurements and performing calculations and proceeded to tell them that, earlier that day, they walked into the bathroom, turned on the water full blast for a minute, and then turned off the water and walked out. That would change the starting conditions and would alter the conclusions of when the drip and collection started, and how long it had been dripping.

Science excludes the eye-witness, because it cannot test and repeat that condition, and they are seeking a naturalistic way to connect the dots between the evidence and what is observed today. When you assume naturalism, you will have a naturalistic conclusion. Any "eye-witness" account from God, for instance, will be dismissed as "unscientific" (which is code for ignorant mythology, not based on fact), even if the account is actually true.

Applied to evolutionary biology, the theory assumes a natural mechanism for the diversity of life that exists today. There are many other naturalistic assumptions that exist in other scientific fields which also feed into the discussion, as well. While the theory seeks the cause with the most explanation power, the explanatory power is defined by naturalistic assumptions. An all-powerful God creating the basis for all life with natural mechanisms for added diversity over time has quite a bit of explanatory power if you believe the Bible is true, but if you assume materialistic naturalism and interpret all other evidence in light that, then you may find supernatural creation by God as a weak explanation.

quote:

---

Got it.

Still not following, though.

Your windpipe is open by default.

If we ate through a different tube we'd still need the epiglottis to cover tube when not in use.

What's changed?

Outside of not choking while eating?

---

A lot would change.

Our head and neck shapes would change due to the a different placement of each of the tubes. Speaking, breathing, and swallowing would be different and likely slower due to the coordination changes needed to perform all three in close succession.

At the end of the day, given the number of choking deaths we have compared to the number of people who could die from choking, it's an extremely small number. It's even much smaller when you count the odds of choking per swallow.

quote:

---

We were designed with the ability to clearly communicate through speech, eating, and breathing using systems that work efficiently together, even with safety measures in place to lower the likelihood of something wrong happening (choking). As I said before, the fact that bad things can and do happen does not negate the magnificence of the design.

"Back pain is a leading cause of morbidity and disability in the United States.1 It is estimated that up to 80% of people will experience low back pain at some point during their lifetimes.2,3 At any given point in time, about 26% of U.S. adults have low back pain..."

- Source

Everything from muscle strains, to herniated discs, to ligament sprain, to degenerative disc disease, to facet joint irritation, etc.

We're exactly what one would expect to see from a quadruped evolving to walk upright and not as one would expect to see as a being *DESIGNED* to walk upright.

Or, if this is a design, its that of a below average high schooler, not an all knowing being.

---

How much of that pain is due to sitting all day, as many people in the US are doing, or due to excessive obesity putting pressure on the spine? Perhaps the pain isn't due to bad design as much as an abuse of the body due to our modern lifestyles.

I would argue that the spine actually points to design rather than a clunky outcome of unguided processes. We have to have a spine that is sturdy enough to hold our weight as those intended to walk upright; it needs to be strong enough to protect our spinal cords; and it needs to be flexible enough for the twisting and bending we do. A spine too "rigid" wouldn't hurt, but you couldn't tie your shoes. A "soft" back would be flexible but leave you paralyzed. Our current spines protect, support, and bend with a good balance for all we need to do, with the s-shape being a good shock absorber.

quote:

---

Basically every invention you use in your modern life was created by a non christian. Dunning-Kruger.

---

To not be Christian or fully convinced of Christianity does not equal athiest.

quote:

---

representative animals of every kind could have been loaded onto on the ark with supernatural guidance by God

---

There are 6.5 million species of land animals. An ark the size of an aircraft carrier couldn't house them. Not even close. Further how did Noah redistribute them to Australia, the Americas, etc.

quote:

---

Repent of your unbelief

---

and you of yours. The Earth was not created < 140 hrs prior to the first man setting foot upon it. If you believe that, you are not using the tools God blessed you with.

quote:

---

There is no domed firmament. Noah could not have gathered, then loaded, all Earth's land animals on to an ark. Jonah could not have been swallowed by a whale for three days, and then vomited onto land. E.g., the impossibility of Jonah would have been as obvious to authors at the time as it is to us now. So there must be allegorical intent.

---

quote:

---

NC_Tigah

---

The Bible is replete with supernatural, miraculous accounts. Do you question them all?

quote:

---

Where is that in scripture?

---

Genesis 1-3 explains that God created the different kinds of animals, differently and separately. It doesn’t teach that they came from one common ancestral life form.

quote:

---

The Bible is replete with supernatural, miraculous accounts. Do you question them all?

---

Yes, just as you question all the supernatural, miraculous accounts in other religions’ texts.