We see that there is different sensory focuses. For instance many animals can smell and hear much better than humans do. Some animals have exceptionally better eyes than humans, but overall humans are very focused on vision.
Now when we look at modern inner city environments and the like. Would you think it to be actually better if our senses, particularly our eyes were that much better and delivering even more input to our brains? We already see many people that are overwhelmed in terms of their sensory input and frankly the ones that aren’t still suffer slowly from living in cities. In terms of where we are now, i don’t think it is too bad that we don’t have hawk eyes.
and so… the “intelligent designer” is, for some reason, restricted from being able to make human brains capable of withstanding the stress from having improved senses
The eyes of mammals are designed in a way that they “see less” than for instance certain birds or reptiles.
You call this “fuck up some weird convulted way”, when it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Thereby it is consistent with the way the visual nerve cells are designed and work together with the rest of physics and chemistry. The design is intelligent as it factors in all aspects as part of a coherent complete design. A design far too complex for any human mind to grasp in full.
Basically your question is like asking, why there is no “magic solution” that directly breaks the observable laws of physics. The genius of the design is in not requiring to break the observable laws of physics to achieve the desired outcome.
You say this is “unscientific garbage” when your only alternative explanation is “everything just happened randomly and here we are.” Neither approach, “intelligent design” nor “extremely long chain of random occurrences” can be empirically observed and only argued logically. I find it unscientific to denounce a hypothesis as “unscientific garbage” when it cannot be falsified, while the counter hypothesis cannot be proven.
You say this is “unscientific garbage” when your only alternative explanation is "everything just happened randomly and here we are
What an absolutely absurd misstatement about what evolution is. If you actually believe this, then you’re doing yourself a massive disservice, and you really need to learn what evolution actually is before attempting to defend something that claims to be an alternative (it’s not). It’s almost insultingly incorrect.
Intelligent Design, literally does not fit the criteria to be considered a scientific theory. That’s not even a biased take, it’s just fact.
your only alternative explanation is “everything just happened randomly and here we are.”
Evolution is definitely not random. The mutations that show up are random, but the selection for them is very directed. If the traits give an organism the attributes to survive, it does and will pass those traits on. If not, it doesn’t. Your argument that it’s all random is typical creationist nonsense.
Neither approach, “intelligent design” nor “extremely long chain of random occurrences” can be empirically observed
We’ve observed evolution many many times. From the peppered moth to COVID and the flu, we observe evolution all the time. It’s the underlying science for all biology and none of it makes sense with out it.
Evolution is a theory that has thousands of proven data points to support it being true. And not one of those experiments has come back showing “goddidit”. Intelligent design is unscientific garbage pulled from a book of fairy tales.
From the point of intelligent design:
We see that there is different sensory focuses. For instance many animals can smell and hear much better than humans do. Some animals have exceptionally better eyes than humans, but overall humans are very focused on vision.
Now when we look at modern inner city environments and the like. Would you think it to be actually better if our senses, particularly our eyes were that much better and delivering even more input to our brains? We already see many people that are overwhelmed in terms of their sensory input and frankly the ones that aren’t still suffer slowly from living in cities. In terms of where we are now, i don’t think it is too bad that we don’t have hawk eyes.
and so… the “intelligent designer” is, for some reason, restricted from being able to make human brains capable of withstanding the stress from having improved senses
So this intelligent designer decided to fuck our eyes up some weird convoluted way instead of just… making us see less?
I honestly hope you don’t subscribe to this unscientific garbage.
The eyes of mammals are designed in a way that they “see less” than for instance certain birds or reptiles.
You call this “fuck up some weird convulted way”, when it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Thereby it is consistent with the way the visual nerve cells are designed and work together with the rest of physics and chemistry. The design is intelligent as it factors in all aspects as part of a coherent complete design. A design far too complex for any human mind to grasp in full.
Basically your question is like asking, why there is no “magic solution” that directly breaks the observable laws of physics. The genius of the design is in not requiring to break the observable laws of physics to achieve the desired outcome.
You say this is “unscientific garbage” when your only alternative explanation is “everything just happened randomly and here we are.” Neither approach, “intelligent design” nor “extremely long chain of random occurrences” can be empirically observed and only argued logically. I find it unscientific to denounce a hypothesis as “unscientific garbage” when it cannot be falsified, while the counter hypothesis cannot be proven.
What an absolutely absurd misstatement about what evolution is. If you actually believe this, then you’re doing yourself a massive disservice, and you really need to learn what evolution actually is before attempting to defend something that claims to be an alternative (it’s not). It’s almost insultingly incorrect.
Intelligent Design, literally does not fit the criteria to be considered a scientific theory. That’s not even a biased take, it’s just fact.
Evolution is definitely not random. The mutations that show up are random, but the selection for them is very directed. If the traits give an organism the attributes to survive, it does and will pass those traits on. If not, it doesn’t. Your argument that it’s all random is typical creationist nonsense.
We’ve observed evolution many many times. From the peppered moth to COVID and the flu, we observe evolution all the time. It’s the underlying science for all biology and none of it makes sense with out it.
Evolution is a theory that has thousands of proven data points to support it being true. And not one of those experiments has come back showing “goddidit”. Intelligent design is unscientific garbage pulled from a book of fairy tales.