Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

Sin didn't cause our retinas to become inverted. It was a trade off in order for our eyes to receive more nutrients such as oxygen.http://www.catalase.com/retina.htm

The both of you are debating this issue from the perspective of the way you think a creator should be running things.Why should a creator be concerned with creating a perfect world if it doesn't need to be perfect in order to fulfill certain purposes?

Maybe the reason why the creator doesn't reside in the physical world is because it has limitations. I don't know. I think design doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to serve certain purposes. Look at this another way. Does your computer need more memory? Is the screen to small? I am not here in an attempt to convince you otherwise. I am here to sharpen my skills as a proponent of I.D.

Let's say that you are a friend of Michael Dell. I'm not sure but I think he is the owner and CEO of Dell Computers. Michael recently gave you a state of the art computer and now you're using it and you know it is better than anything your other friends currently have. Michael let you in on a secret. Michael Dell is a god and he has access to unlimited intelligence. You feel fortunate that you have this great computer but then it dawns on you to ask Michael a question."Hey Michael, since you are a god, why can't you build a perfect computer?"Michael's reply might go something like this?"Why are you asking me that? What is a perfect computer? How fast does it have to be to be perfect? Your computer doesn't have to be perfect. It will do just fine for all of your needs."

I can't disagree with you. The others who responded to my post are just attempting to equivocate my statement because they don't have an answer for it.It seems biological systems are more complex than systems that are designed by people. Modern technology and biochemistry has elucidated this. I think my creator enabled organisms to adapt to their environments via some kind of evolution but not neo-Darwinism.

What is your reason for thinking that living organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment?It is based on observation and the evidence. I’m sure you’re familiar with Darwin’s finches and peppered moths.

I don't reject all theories of evolution. Evolution is probably a chaotic mixture of biochemical processes and at least one type of energy. It seems to me that a basic understanding of chaos theory provides new perspectives of possibilities within the origins of life.

It also occurred to me that all other theories of evolution enable certain people to hold at least a greater possibility of a creator being involved. Neo-Darwinism doesn’t have any room for a creator to become involved unless a creator is involved in the natural selection process. According to a secular perspective, it isn’t. You have to attribute mutations and natural selection as being the only mechanisms for evolution. Neo-Darwinism is on the furthest side of a spectrum of possibilities that allows those who believe in supernatural causations.Page not found - Bruce H. Lipton, PhD

That sounds like neo-Darwinism to me.

What is it that makes biological systems more "complex" than our artificial ones? Try defining your terms before you go any further.Parts of organisms are specifically arranged into complex patterns in order to perform specific functions such as the flagellum. The flagellum is more sophisticated than outboard motor engines that drive man made water vessels. Also, DNA contains more information than an encyclopedia. If these things arrived here from outer space, we would say that this would prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But since these things are here already, many explain them away by some sort of chance process.

If some sort of DNA came from space, we would not consider it evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence...merely extraterrestrial life.This is circular reasoning. I was hoping for someone who could really challenge my messages.

Perhaps you can state that would be to much of a stretch to compare biological systems to mechanical ones that were designed by people.

Too much of a stretch? They are not even in the same ballpark. It is comparing apples to oranges. Biological systems at the microscopic level are the result of accumulated chemical changes and guided by natural selection. Machines are designed, created and maintained by human beings. Case closed.Not that I expect to convince you but I can use the complex AMP molecule to strengthen my case. And my case is that I would tend to agree with you if I didn't see evidence of design and not just a God of the gaps. I can also use the Cambrain explosion and Darwin's tree. According to Darwin's theory:

1. There should be simple life forms in the beginning that gradually became more complex.

2. Life would have become increasingly diverse.

The first one is correct but the second scenario did not happen. Instead of one phylum at first and seeing a slow and steady increase of phylum, we see what seems to be seeding of phylum. (Mainly during the Cambrain period). Darwin's theoretical tree of life is not supported in the fossil record. This implies design. Now, lets go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy where they do an exceptional job explaining evolution to see what they say.CC300: Cambrian Explosion

I have read other good points from both sides of the debate and I thought this was one of their strongest arguments:Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

However, Paul Chien refutes this theory in the link below:

QUIZ & ANSWERS for: Intelligent Design and the Origin of Animal Phyla

It is circular reasoning. If we received DNA from outer space it wouldn't disprove the existence of a creator. What it probably would do is force us to question the neo-Darwin paradigm. Why? How does DNA form on earth and in outer space by chance? The chances of that happening are inconsiderably astronomical. You can say that DNA came here from outer space but that still doesn't answer the question of how I was created in the first place.

Lynn Margulis has a theory that organisms advance by symbiosis and cooperation. There is also the complexity theory of evolution saying that organisms tend to organize themselves. You can google them am I am sure you will find these theories.These theories are not forms of neo-Darwinism because unguided mutations are not involved in these theories.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I am talking about phylum. Your link is about the diversity of genera.

That is correct and it doesn't invalidate my point.

Phyla have only existed for a few hundred years. They were invented by Linnaeus. Phyla are not real things, they are human contrivances.Now I have heard all of it. If this is true then why doesn't science just throw it out? Documentation please.