Unintelligent Design

Much has been made of the Kansas Board of Education's upcoming ruling about whether to teach "Intelligent Design" next to evolution theory in schools. Generally thought to be covert creationists, the ID crowd argues (and I use the word loosely here) that some mechanisms in nature are so complex that they could not have come into being through the randomness thought to be so inherent to evolution. Rather, they argue, some unnamed "Intelligent Designer" (three letters, starts with a capital G) has been responsible.
Here's how the ID people are wrong:

  • ID is a hypothesis with no actual empirical data to back it up. In contrast, Darwin's concept of natural selection has received strong support through the discovery of DNA: randomly mutating building blocks of life.
  • ID was born out of an assumption, not out of a problem. Darwin tried to find out why; ID attempts to prove "because".
  • As a scientific theory, its backing by the scientific community is less serious than, say, the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS.
  • ID argues that evolution is 'just a theory'. And so it is --just like, for example, gravity.
  • How can the Designer be Intelligent if He (let's be honest, it's that He guy, isn't it?) designed the appendix and the tailbone? Why did He create animals that can smell or hear thousands of times better than we can, even though we are obviously the cream of the crop?
But one argument, in my opinion, outranks all of the previous ones by far:
No Intelligent Designer would ever have allowed such a blatantly stupid group of people as Intelligent Design advocates to be born.

For further reading, see: how Douglas Adams argues that intricate things in nature disprove God's existence, and which other 'parallel theories' must be considered.

Posted by cronopio at 01:59 PM, September 21, 2005