I'm not much up on the whole Intelligent Design arguments, but it seems to me that there are a lot of really negative conclusions one can draw about the Intelligent Designer simply by looking at how things work in nature.
The first one the comes to mind is that fact that for many, many species, especially in the ocean, most of the babies end of as a quick meal shortly after they hare hatched or born.
There's a land crab in Cuba that travels miles and miles over tough terrain and busy roads, in the hot sun on order to release their fertilized eggs in the ocean.
Once the eggs hit the water they hatch immediately and millions of cute, little baby crabs are immediately eaten by waiting fish. Less than 10% (a lot less I think) of the babies actually make it adult hood and get back to land where then can travel long distances over rough terrain and busy roads an live their lives.
Now it's really nice for the fish that they can get this cheap meal, but millions of baby crabs die moments after hatching. This must mean that the Intelligent Designer really doesn't care about these baby animals.
The same thing is repeated in different ways with other species.
There's a species of bird that lays 2 eggs a few days apart. The Intelligent Designer has worked it out that only one bird will probably survive, so the older bird ends up pecking its younger sibling to death and tossing its body out of the nest.
One really has to admire the intricate plan that brings this about.
I could go on but there are other conclusions to be drawn. A lot of the natural world is just plain messy, and the perfect intricate, interconnected events that keep everything working 'like clockwork' regularly occur out of sync, and lots of waste happens.
There are really three forms of suffering, however.
First you have the suffering of suffering - stab yourself in the back of the hand with a fork? It hurts.
Second comes the suffering of change. Take that fork, instead of stabbing yourself use it to stab your favorite treat, and pop it in your mouth. Good? Lets do it this way - you eat the treat and I'll sit, watch and tell you when you may stop. I guarantee I can demonstrate another form of suffering for you - that which seems pleasureable but can not be indulged to infinity is also a source of pain.
The third requires more wits than I have to explain, but its something along the lines of 'you suffer now because you suffered in the past'.
Board is off to a lovely start with ID this fine morning.
>> Now it's really nice for the fish that they can get this cheap meal, but millions of baby crabs die moments after hatching. <<
What ever happened to "Right to Life(tm)"?
(AKA: the religious right's love affair with blobs of protoplasm).
<<I'm not much up on the whole Intelligent Design arguments, but it seems to me that there are a lot of really negative conclusions one can draw about the Intelligent Designer simply by looking at how things work in nature.>>
So you're saying that the Intelligent Designer is more of a management type, rather than an engineer or a scientist?
>>>>So you're saying that the Intelligent Designer is more of a management type, rather than an engineer or a scientist?<<<<
I'm saying that if you look at the results a lot of the details of the Design that was Intelligently created are really messy and look random, wasteful and/or cruel - and ever perverted.
You have orgies and same sex mating, intra-species MURDER, occasional starvation on a massive scale, not to mention them massive, global extinction of almost all species that has occured several times since life began.
Does that make the ID more of a manager than an engineer or a scientist? I can't really answer that.
To me the real issue is that the Question is backwards. The only reason we can ask the question of why and how we are hear is because events unfolded a certain way to allow us to be here.
If those events has happened differently we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>> So you're saying that the Intelligent Designer is more of a management type, rather than an engineer or a scientist? <<
The designers were very much like the characters in the comic strip Dilbert. Wally was making coffee and playing with the model of a skeleton of some creature with four legs. The parts got soft and kind of melted. He straightened out the parts as best he could, so he wouldn't get in trouble. The pointy haired boss saw it, and thought it would be ideal for use in people. Thus we have our wonderfully thought out knees and spine.
Catbert, the evil human resources manager, ran an open sewer right through a prime recreation area, just to be mean.
You get the idea, run with it.