Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

If the cases shown in the above-linked photos are examples of "intelligent design," then the question has to be asked: To what purpose?

Such cases are not just tragic, but extremely cruel. They not only argue against "intelligent design," but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion.

1 posted on 11/11/2005 4:47:38 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
To: Admin Moderator

Thank you for the advice. I think it works this way. I also think this is an important debate to have.


2 posted on 11/11/2005 4:48:40 PM PST by Wolfstar (Whatever happened to "These Colors Don't Run?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

Reality in general cannot be reconciled with intelligent design.


3 posted on 11/11/2005 4:49:25 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar
This is like comparing I-10 from 10,000 feet in an Airplane and a Pothole with a wide angle lense from 2 feet.

Dumbest way to start an argument that I have ever seen, but hey it's your nickel.

TT
4 posted on 11/11/2005 4:51:15 PM PST by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

I doubt these images, as horrible as they are, really shake anyone's beliefs in God or Intelligent Design. These cases you show are exceptions, not the rule.

All I can say is that if this is the best you can do it is pretty sad.


5 posted on 11/11/2005 4:51:22 PM PST by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

These clear examples of the effect of sin and corruption of the original design resulting from man's rebellion against God (Genesis 3)


7 posted on 11/11/2005 4:54:44 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." - 1 Cor 13:12


8 posted on 11/11/2005 4:55:08 PM PST by Rightwing Conspiratr1 (Lock-n-load!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

Wrong!

Your arguments are exactly why intelligent design is a must.

Your "science" supposes that these lives are worthless. You provide photos so that the aesthetics can govern our rationality. These are not humans-- but monsters. Therefore, we should allow our human discernment to kill them prior to birth and more importantly fully engage the "moral" task of sorting the strong from the weak.

No aspect of physical deformity or defect can demean the metaphysical commitments of valuing human life. The intellectual war against intelligent design is a war to rationalize human life. Showing us shocking pictures of deformed humanity will not do it.

You are not god nor are any of your rational censorship loving pals. We are endowed by our creator-- even if you don't like our looks.


9 posted on 11/11/2005 4:55:19 PM PST by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

I think everything in life is capable of shaking your faith of God's existance. But in a way, that's the point. You have to find God of your own accord, especially in the difficult times.

Loving God and having faith doesn't mean that life is perfect, no matter what the Oprah-Televangelists tell you.. The early martyrs of the Church are a perfectly good example of that.


11 posted on 11/11/2005 4:56:37 PM PST by Aggie Mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar
"They not only argue against "intelligent design," but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion."

This appears to be along the same lines as "why does God allow natural disasters to occur". Where in the Christian faith are we promised a perfect Earthly existence? I think this is just a veiled attempt at ridicule. No surprise there though.
12 posted on 11/11/2005 4:56:49 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

ID assumes purpose. It might be that a perfect specimen exists nowhere, ever, nor would the existence of a perfect specimen be part of the purpose. Not one perfect specimen of anything. If there is a perfection, there can be only one.


15 posted on 11/11/2005 4:57:35 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

I think that the design is wonderful-I also think the design can be corrupted by external forces,such as chemicals in the food chain,background radiation,and who knows what else.All this has no effect on my faith.


18 posted on 11/11/2005 4:59:25 PM PST by Farmer Dean (Every time a toilet flushes,another liberal gets his brains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar


Do you really believe God hates you as much as you hate him?


21 posted on 11/11/2005 5:00:47 PM PST by labette ("When policemen {judges} break the law, there isn't any law. Just a fight for survival".-Billy Jack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar
Such cases are not just tragic, but extremely cruel. They not only argue against "intelligent design," but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion.

How so? Perhaps an eternity of bliss in the afterlife awaits the afflicted.

23 posted on 11/11/2005 5:02:08 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

A myopic argument......by this same philosophy, I would assume that evolutionary principles also would not apply to such genetic abnormality. Is not the purpose of evolution for a species to continue in an upward development? As a species developed would not it conquer such aberration?
I tend to think that such difficulties would actually draw individuals closer to a higher power. This utter helplessness only makes one search for strength in something greater.


26 posted on 11/11/2005 5:04:02 PM PST by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

You cite one terrible aspect of life and use it to discredit religion.

Why not point to your own head and use it to credit religion?


27 posted on 11/11/2005 5:05:59 PM PST by Michael Goldsberry (an enemy of islam -- Joe Boucher; Leapfrog; Dr.Zoidberg; Lazamataz; ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar; All

I am going to throw my $.02 worth in on this. First of all my son has Down Syndrome. I can reconcile this debate. My son is a Blessing & a gift from the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY! He teaches me everyday about uncondtional love. No matter how bad my day has been to hear Lance go "Hi Dadda" makes all better. I firmly believe that he is an Angel sent to earth to teach about love.


Nuff Said


34 posted on 11/11/2005 5:10:35 PM PST by TMSuchman (2nd Generation U.S. MARINE, 3rd Generation American & PROUD OF IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar
Good question. But some basic starting points here:

From the Darwinian p.o.v.: Fitness doesn't mean the unfit should survive. Nature absolves its own inefficiencies.

From the logical / existential p.o.v.: Evidence of an opposite is not proof that one or the other doesn't or can't exist. It does not follow that evidence of hot water means there is no cold water, or that evidence of death means there is no life.

From the ancient p.o.v. there are two principles that are fundamental (they still hold this view that chaos and complexity are complementary universal principles

From the monotheistic p.o.v. evil is not a divine principle; evidence of evil points to other causes. There is also a distinction between moral and nature evil.

And finally, no matter which is preferred, evil still there exists. To be human, we are designed to struggle against it.

45 posted on 11/11/2005 5:15:17 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar; Alamo-Girl

This shakes your faith in religion.

I'm not sure it has anything to say about ID other than that, like a car running down with age, natural processes have an impact on design.

Why does it shake your faith?


46 posted on 11/11/2005 5:15:33 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar
Sounds to me like you just want to launch another 500-post thread of visceral attacks between two fundamentalist-type religions.

Why is this on breaking news? Go to a smoky corner to start your bar fights.
47 posted on 11/11/2005 5:16:01 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar
My understanding is that intelligent design theory pivots on the principle of irreducible complexity at the molecular level. To proponents of ID, IC describes molecular processes and systems that fail when any element of the process or system is defective or missing. It seems to me that birth defects could be potential illustrations of such failure.

Does the existence of birth defects prove that any potential designer wasn't very intelligent? Good question. Does the existence of death do the same thing?

48 posted on 11/11/2005 5:16:46 PM PST by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson