Designed Virus

MIT Builds Batteries with Viruses
By Ed Oswald, BetaNews
April 7, 2006, 12:49 PM Thus the viruses do something new and novel as a result of intelligent design - we know this because it was done by intelligent design humans.The point is that viruses are an easy proven means to implement designed elements into organic systems, so why don't we see design improvements being delivered by various viruses?In fact every mechanism that transmits a disease - whether mosquitos or kinky sexual behavior - is a possible means to deliver new design information, but the evidence is that all such "information" that is so delivered corrupts or harms the recipient and the only beneficial result is for the recipient to become immune to further delivery ... if it survives. If this is design for a purpose, it is a curious, if not a silly¹, purpose.So, how does "Intelligent Design" explain all the bad design carried by viruses and other {vector\delivery} systems?Enjoy..(ID forum)

---

¹ The pictures are back, thanks.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The Fall of course. Original sin.

It'd be pretty funny if IDers started saying this a scientific explanation for their science theory.

I don't suppose there's any need to say it in scientific work, only in answer to a question such as RAZD's.

Are you asserting that this Fall you allude to is part of the ID mechanism?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't know what the "ID mechanism" is, but I thought I'd seen various IDers say they believe in the Fall. But if not, then this is only a YEC's answer to why there are disease-causing agents in the world -- or susceptibility to them or both, and YEC's certainly believe all things were intelligently designed even if we don't agree with the IDers.

Ok, so it is but a YEC wild speculation, not an ID one. All then that is needed is for you to provide evidence for that Fall. But since this thread asks about ID, that should go in some other thread.However, regardless of whether or not this Fall thing you refer to is ID or YEFC, without confirmation that it ever happened, it's purely an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is of course the YEC reason for bad design.This means that using it for ID equates ID with YEC.Thanks.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

At least on this one point -- if IDers believe in the Fall and as I said I thought I'd seen that they do. If not, my mistake. But I've agreed with many things IDers have written here. There is lots of overlap between ID and YEC.

Whether they do or not is irrelevant to how ID explains the question. If it needs to 'fall back' on a stock YEC answer, then it has nothing to add to the argument, and it is a waste of (your and my) time.The basic concept of ID is that we can see the evidence of design without needing to know the designer - it could be any god and it could be an evolved alien - in a scientific manner.Therefore to be a valid ID argument it needs to stand without reference to any creationist position, and be based on a logical evaluation of the evidence -- the ID answer must allow the full spectrum of "possible designers" in the answer.What is the evidence for design in bad designs carried by viruses and other {vector\delivery} systems?Enjoy.Enjoy.

Simple. ID stands for Incompetent Designer.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Pardon my ignorance, but how exactly did viruses sin? or did we sin for them? (i'm not being funny, I just want an explanation of this "original sin" before I can say anything about it's relevance). edited by AdminJar to change qu to qsThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-08-2006 11:17 AM

God cursed the entire Creation for the sake of man when man fell from grace. Death and disease of all kinds entered at that point and affected all living things from then on.

I'm confused are you or are you not ID? If you beleive in GOD, then how can you be unbiass towards other exlanations? Evolution is consistant and testable - that's (partly) why it's science, on the other hand you (not specificaly - but ID in general) seem to zig zag between the evidence (non consistent) and fill the gaps with scripture (not testable).