The hand, a marvel of engineering, is an organ specially created for human beings by God, and reveals with its perfect features the flawless nature of our Lord’s creation.
Our hands, which enable us to perform some very ordinary acts such as stirring a cup of tea, turning the pages of a newspaper, or writing, are incredible engineering wonders.
The most important feature of the hand is its ability to operate with high efficiency in very distinct activities, despite having a standard structure. Being furnished with a great number of muscles and nerves, our arms help our hands grip objects strongly or softly according to different circumstances. For instance, the human hand, although when not formed into a fist, can strike a blow strike against an object with a weight of 45 kilograms. However, our hand can also feel, between its thumb and forefinger, a sheet of paper one tenth of a millimeter in thickness.
Obviously, these two acts are of a totally different character. As one requires sensitivity, the other requires great force. We, however, never even think for a second what we have to do when we take a sheet of paper between our fingers or hit with a fist. Nor do we think how to adjust the strength for these two acts. We never say, "Now I will pick up some paper. Let me apply a force of 500 g. Now I will lift this bucketful of water. Let me apply a force of 40 kg." We even do not bother to think about these.
The reason is that the human hand is designed to perform all these acts simultaneously. The hand is created together with all its functions and all its related structures concurrently.
All the fingers in the hand are the appropriate length and position, and proportionate to each other. For instance, the strength of a fist formed with a hand having a normal thumb is greater than that formed with a hand having a shorter thumb, because with its pre-determined appropriate length, the thumb covers other fingers and helps augment their power by supporting them.
There are many small details in the structure of the hand: for instance, it has smaller structures besides the muscles and nerves. The nails at the tip of the fingers are by no means trivial accessories. When we try to pick a needle from the floor, we use our nails as well as our fingers. The rough surface comprising our fingertips and nails helps us in picking up small objects. Last but not least, nails play a big role in the regulation of the minute pressure fingers have to exert on the object they hold.
Another distinctive feature of the hand is that it does not get tired.
Robot Hands Are a Failure
The worlds of medicine and science spend a considerable effort on making an artificial copy of the hand. The robotic hands so far manufactured have the same performance as human hands in terms of power, yet it is hard to say the same thing for sensitivity of touch, perfect maneuverability, and the ability to do diverse jobs.
Many scientists agree that no robot hand can be made having the complete functions of the hand. Engineer Hans J. Schneebeli, who has designed the robotic hand known as "The Karlsruhe Hand", stated that the more he worked on robotic hands, the more he admired the human hand. He added that they still need a lot of time to make possible even a certain number of the jobs accomplished by a human hand.
The hand usually functions in co-ordination with the eye. The signals reaching the eye are transmitted to the brain, and the hand moves according to the command given by the brain. These, of course, are completed in a very short time and without making us spend a special effort to do them. Robotic hands, on the other hand, can only rely either on sight or touch. Different commands are needed for every move they make. In addition, robotic hands cannot accomplish diverse functions. For instance, a robotic hand playing the piano cannot hold a hammer, and a robotic hand holding a hammer cannot hold an egg without breaking it. Some robotic hands that have only lately been produced are able to perform 2-3 actions together, but this is still very primitive when compared to the abilities of the hand.
In addition, when you consider that the two hands co-operate with each other in perfect harmony, the flawlessness of the design of the hand becomes more explicit.
God designed the hand as an organ especially for human beings. With all these aspects, it shows us the perfection and uniqueness in God’s art of creation.
Does anyone agree with this? I, like most sane people, accept evolutionary theory, and in the past I've debated many a thread about evolution with creationists, mostly christians (I also have an account on christianforums.com). I came across this site and registered to see what the difference is between christian creationists and muslim creationists, in quantity, "arguments", etc... The fallacious argument for design above is completely analogous to the ones christian creationists use, and it seems that muslim creationists too are making use of the intelligent design "theory". So my question to you all is (since no one responded to this OP), are you creationist, and do you find the "argument" above persuasive?
... So my question to you all is (since no one responded to this OP), are you creationist, and do you find the "argument" above persuasive?
Personally, I think the whole aspect of the human body and mind is fascinating. Unfortunately, being a full time student at degree level, I do not have the luxury that is time to discuss/debate on this particular matter.
It is indeed cool though and for me just enforces my belief in God that He has given us pretty much everything we need (well, bar paradise )
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Personally, I think the whole aspect of the human body and mind is fascinating. Unfortunately, being a full time student at degree level, I do not have the luxury that is time to discuss/debate on this particular matter.
It is indeed cool though and for me just enforces my belief in God that He has given us pretty much everything we need (well, bar paradise )
Yeah, I know what it's like, I'm studying too atm, that's why I asked a question instead of refuting the OP argument, since that takes too much time (although I probably won't be able to resist doing that later today ). I also agree that the human body and mind are fascinating (especially at a cellular level), which is why I'm studying bio engineering in cellular and genetic technology. Well, good luck with your own studies, I'm going to go back to doing some studying of my own, since I was taking a break :enough!:.
Does anyone agree with this? I, like most sane people, accept evolutionary theory, and in the past I've debated many a thread about evolution with creationists, mostly christians (I also have an account on christianforums.com). I came across this site and registered to see what the difference is between christian creationists and muslim creationists, in quantity, "arguments", etc... The fallacious argument for design above is completely analogous to the ones christian creationists use, and it seems that muslim creationists too are making use of the intelligent design "theory". So my question to you all is (since no one responded to this OP), are you creationist, and do you find the "argument" above persuasive?
No i dont find the argument persuasive at all..
Many creatures have hands that are prehensil, many apes and rats to name a few. Also our hands are not the best made. They could definetly be better designed for swimming. They could be more sensitive for touch. They could detect light or smell. Not to mention the problems with hands, ingrown nails, caral tunnel syndrome, arthritis , skin problems ,etc...
However we are resonable adapted to our enviroment.
No i dont find the argument persuasive at all..
Many creatures have hands that are prehensil, many apes and rats to name a few. Also our hands are not the best made. They could definetly be better designed for swimming. They could be more sensitive for touch. They could detect light or smell. Not to mention the problems with hands, ingrown nails, caral tunnel syndrome, arthritis , skin problems ,etc...
However we are resonable adapted to our enviroment.
Do you think evolution is by chance or is it guided?
Do you think evolution is by chance or is it guided?
There's the factor of random mutations that one could call "by chance", but then these random mutations go through a sieve of natural selection, which one could call "guided". There is both an aspect of chance and an aspect of guiding, although this guiding occurs by a completely natural, non-intelligent entity.
Do you think evolution is by chance or is it guided?
As Opethian has stated its a combination of random mutation with selection of different types including natural, sexual and maybe others. Currently there is no reason to believe that there is any guiding hand.
Also if there was some sort of engineer they could have done a much better job in our design.
If there was an omni powerful intelligent engineer I would expect to see a perfect design.
That’s a strange thing for an evolutionist to say, didn’t we all evolve from fish to start with?
In the spirit of seareching
Eric
Huh? All I am saying is that if we were designed it was done very badly.
I personally dont see any design in us, at least not from something greatly intelligent.
Huh? All I am saying is that if we were designed it was done very badly.
I personally dont see any design in us, at least not from something greatly intelligent.
Design is nearly always a compromise, if you want to design a hand with swimming qualities you put some webbing on it and give it a bigger surface area. If you do that you may loose or compromise other qualities, you will have a clumsy hand
They could definetly be better designed for swimming.
Just another minor little nit pick, the way our hands are designed combined with our brain gives us the ability to build all manor of flippers, boats and submarines. Do you want webbed hands and feet so you can be a better swimmer, or do you want the ability to drive a jet ski?
Design is nearly always a compromise, if you want to design a hand with swimming qualities you put some webbing on it and give it a bigger surface area. If you do that you may loose or compromise other qualities, you will have a clumsy hand
In the spirit of searching
Eric
Why would a omnipotent designer be limited in its design? Heck it could have made us like Odo in DS9 able to morhp ourselves at will. All we would need to be better swimmers is webbed hands, we could even make them retractable webbing so we could still have more agile fingers.
With intelligent design you look at the things you want to try and achieve; and then you try and design something for that purpose. If you design retractable webbing and it is not used, then it is a waste of time, and you are building more things that can go wrong.
Probably 99.9 percent of the world population only needs to swim for recreational purposes; and they have many man made attachments like flippers that can help them.
So why should a creator designer need to give us retractable webbing?
With intelligent design you look at the things you want to try and achieve; and then you try and design something for that purpose. If you design retractable webbing and it is not used, then it is a waste of time, and you are building more things that can go wrong.
Probably 99.9 percent of the world population only needs to swim for recreational purposes; and they have many man made attachments like flippers that can help them.
So why should a creator designer need to give us retractable webbing?
In the spirit of searching
Eric
Because we need it to be better swimmers. A omnipotent designer could design it so we could have webbing whenever we needed it and surely a omni smart designer could build it so it never went wrong. Since it is retractable you wouldnt use it till you need it, not to mention for the majoritity of our existence we didnt swim for fun but for food and survival.
Also why do men have nipples? Why do we have a vestigial appendix "it no longer functions as it once did."
for the majoritity of our existence we didnt swim for fun but for food and survival.
If you really believe that we had to swim for food and survival, how do you explain evolution?
Surely the whole theory of evolution hangs on how the best in the species adapts to its surroundings. If webbed hands and feet were that important for survival then the evolutionary process would have kept them.
So where does that leave our debate, it seems that evolution replaced webbed hands for something better, and an omnipotent designer did not deem webbed features necessary for mankind.
If you really believe that we had to swim for food and survival, how do you explain evolution?
Surely the whole theory of evolution hangs on how the best in the species adapts to its surroundings. If webbed hands and feet were that important for survival then the evolutionary process would have kept them.
So where does that leave our debate, it seems that evolution replaced webbed hands for something better, and an omnipotent designer did not deem webbed features necessary for mankind.
In the spirit of searching
Eric
What's important here is the difference between design and evolution. For intelligent design, the assumption is that everything that we observe on this planet was designed by an omnipotent designer, and thus everything should be optimally designed, with no room for improvements whatsoever. This is not what we observe. You can say that for a lot of advantages in one area a disadvantage will arise in another area, but there are still many improvements that could be made in our body plan and cellular plan without having to sacrifice something else. Our eyesight could be better, our hearing could be better, we could have stronger skeletal structures (a certain family with a rare mutation has nearly unbreakable bones), we could be stronger, our metabolism could be more efficient etc... When you study molecular biology you will see many ingenious systems, that are nevertheless always flawed and improvable in certain ways. We can marvel at the complexity of the cell and the intricacies of the human body, but we will still find flaws, significant and less significant, everywhere. Improvements are possible, even if those improvements wouldn't be needed under most circumstances. That is why evolutionary theory does predict what we observe. Evolution has no direction, no preset goal. It is perfectly normal to find suboptimal designs everywhere in nature if the diversity of organisms we observe in nature today are the result of evolution. As long as the flaws are not significant enough to cause the extinction of a species, the species that has these flaws can continue to survive and pass on their genetic material to their offspring. Evolution allows organisms to indirectly adapt to their environment, so that they remain able to survive and procreate. The organisms don't have to be perfect, they just have to be well enough adapted to achieve a certain level of survival and procreation. If we would have been designed by a divine, omnipotent designer, there would be no reason for any flaws at all, and thus we wouldn't observe them either. And if you want to assume that an omnipotent creator does not necessarily have to make perfect designs, then why not let this creator create us by the means of evolution? If this creator was not going for perfection anyway, he could have just as well started a natural process that doesn't need his interference after he/she/it started it, that could result in life, in a completely natural way.
Besides, if you respect and admire your creator so much, what is more elegant and awesome? Creating life in all its forms directly, designing them like humans design lifeless objects, or creating a vast, complex natural process that gives rise to life and the diversification of this life all by itself?
Greetings and peace be with you Opethian; welcome to the forum.
the assumption is that everything that we observe on this planet was designed by an omnipotent designer, and thus everything should be optimally designed, with no room for improvements whatsoever
I agree with you up to a point, and if you where to search for a bottom line to this argument then mankind should have been created in a way that they would not suffer, sickness, injury and ultimately death.
Presumably it is within God’s power to create immortality, because we have life after death.
So the greater question might be to search for a reason why God did not give our generation immortality?
If this creator was not going for perfection anyway, he could have just as well started a natural process that doesn't need his interference after he/she/it started it, that could result in life, in a completely natural way.
For evolution to stand a chance of working you need to find an answer to the creation of the universe from nothing, or with no beginning, and you need to prove abiogenesis.
If you really believe that we had to swim for food and survival, how do you explain evolution?
Surely the whole theory of evolution hangs on how the best in the species adapts to its surroundings. If webbed hands and feet were that important for survival then the evolutionary process would have kept them.
So where does that leave our debate, it seems that evolution replaced webbed hands for something better, and an omnipotent designer did not deem webbed features necessary for mankind.
In the spirit of searching
Eric
Evolution goes with what works. For evolution webbed toes and fingers would have been a hinderance. But if you are a ominpotent designer you could make it so it wouldnt be. Remember an omnipotent designer can make the flawless design , it did not. Evolution can make naturally a good enough design, it has.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
The Hand: A Marvel of Engineering
)
). I also agree that the human body and mind are fascinating (especially at a cellular level), which is why I'm studying bio engineering in cellular and genetic technology. Well, good luck with your own studies, I'm going to go back to doing some studying of my own, since I was taking a break :enough!:.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks