Comments on: The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

By: William Longworth

William Longworth — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:25:11 +0000

How can anyone but the “intelligent designer” be sure whether a knee cap was or wasn’t designed to weather assaults from baseball bats? Just as how can anyone but the “intelligent designer” explain why the human optic nerve connects to the eye through a hole (and subsequent blind spot) in the back of the retina rather than through the outside of the eye (as is the case with other creatures not created in “His” image). Maybe next time “God” will consider the ravings of mad physicians who wonder why anyone would design something so prone to retinal tears and lesions, not to mention the aforementioned blind spot and complex mental visual processing to correct it. Why give the better eyes to the lesser beasts and saddle human beings, created in “His” image remember, with the inverted and injury prone model? Just wondering.

By: Colin Munro

Colin Munro — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 05:30:07 +0000

It’s obvious that the knee cap wasn’t designed to be smashed with a baseball bat…. I guess next time God should consider the ravings of mad atheists before he designs anything….

By: Mykolas

Mykolas — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:48:44 +0000

All you bloggers miss the point regarding the knee cap and scientist.. Of course, the knee was broken. And it was broken by the bat. But “why�? is the question. You think that bat just evolved? Hell no! That bat was a “bat out of hell’ designed by anti-intelligent design, sometimes referred to as the antichrist. It went and attacked the knee as that knee was the product of its sworn celestial enemy, Mr. Intelligent Designer himself and minions. Think big picture here folks. Score 1 for the bat as it proved that the knee was breakable and therefore proved that the knee had a design flaw. This means, by extension, that the Intelligent Designer is flawed. Yeah? And herein lies the problem. What we are dealing here is very product liability issue. We humans should file suit against the Intelligent Designer for making such crappy error prone set of products that are buggier than Windows 98. In fact let’s make this class action and drag in any number of species and natural systems that have flaws. Onward friends to demand justice from the celestial courts!

By: William Longworth

William Longworth — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:45:34 +0000

You forgot an important point. Since the knee cap is under the skin, and all evidence points to the scientist striking the surface of the knee, but not the knee cap itself, it can be argued that the scientist may have bruised the skin, but the knee cap was broken before he got there. I mean really, how can anyone be sure they broke the knee cap when you can’t even see the knee cap without slicing open the leg and checking, and even then, how can you establish the time of the actual break? As the saying goes coincidence does not necessarily establish causality or any other relationship other than dumb luck. Just because the ID advocate’s knee looks like a mass of strawberry jelly and he is in excruciating pain doesn’t mean he wasn’t walking around with a broken knee for weeks without knowing it. I’d say the scientist did him a favor because otherwise he might have been driving down the road when his stealth knee problem decided to flare up and make him loose control, running down multiple pedestrians before plunging over an embankment to his firey doom.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:03:53 +0000

Excellent! I could not have bashed an idiot’s kneecap (or argument) better myself.