Intelligent Design (or: Who’s The Idiot That Gave Me Nipples?)
In recent years, I’ve seen ever growing chatter and debate over the idea of “Intelligent Design.” The theory itself is quite obtuse, but the general belief is that any given thing in nature (including humans) is so complex and well designed, that there must be an intelligent designer behind it. The people that support this theory quite often claim that it’s not a religiously based hypothesis, but unfortunately, that is a thin veneer that most in the scientific community see through immediately.
I’ve had a lot of trouble coming up with theories against this, mostly because I’m an idiot and this isn’t my field of expertise. I guess the biggest, simplest argument is that the theory automagically assumes a great creator, rather than a series of evolutionary steps.
The common metaphor that “ID” proponents use is finding a pocket-watch in the middle of a forest. You know that it was created, not formed, and there is reason and purpose behind it. Despite the philosophical problems with such an assumption, a pocket-watch ISN’T ALIVE, and doesn’t have to fight and procreate for the survival of its species.
Anyway, this is a long rant for a link elsewhere, but in today’s New York Times magazine, there’s a great editorial about the fallacies of this approach. Read it and weep for the future of our children.
http://www.nytimes.com – Unintelligent Design
It’s sad to see the same issues from 80 years ago, in the Scopes Monkey Trial, still being discussed today.