|
"The
theory of intelligent design" is the most unintelligent
hogwash to come out of the Christian realm since the Scopes monkey
trials. The entire concept is a staggering monument to
anti-intellectualism.
To say you
believe in such an idea is to immediately identify yourself with
an ideology so far to the fringe that you should be hauled away to
the nuthouse, post-haste.
Intelligent
design says the world is so complicated and so perfectly ordered
that it must have been made by a higher power. It is often
referred to as a "theory," and its supporters argue that
it should be presented in biology schoolbooks as an accompaniment
to the theory of evolution. If it sounds like a backdoor way to
argue creationism, that's because it is.
The problem
with such base stupidity is that design-loving Christians are
using the word "theory," but what they have is, at best,
a "hypothesis." Even that is generous.
A theory is
a testable, reproducible idea that can produce measurable data. A
hypothesis is an idea that can be examined by experiment, and that
is where the generosity of the previous paragraph kicks in.
You cannot
empirically prove the existence of God. To say an idea that
incorporates God should be part of a science textbook is a most
grievous insult to thinking people everywhere.
Evolution is
a theory. It has been repeatedly tested, and has been repeatedly
proven in those tests. It is not a "law," but there is a
preponderance of evidence to show its validity.
Intelligent
design is equivalent to saying "computers are so complicated
that they must be run by magic." Yes, it is true that to the
average person, the more you look at the inner workings of
computers, the more complicated they become. It is also true that
there comes a point when it's impossible to know what's going on
without a college degree. But it doesn't make "magic" an
acceptable explanation.
It's all
very well and good to whine about how "the world's so
complicated. I just don't get it, so God must have made it."
But that's simply an admission of ignorance. Just because you're
too thick-headed to put down your Bible and try reading biology
texts with an open mind, doesn't give you the right to try to put
mysticism into the realm of science.
It will be a
cold day in hell when the Christians who espouse the intelligent
design idea can come up with an experiment to test it. If they
want to step into the world of science and have their idea
debated, they need to play by the rules. Would you come onto a
basketball court and expect to score a touchdown? Then don't try
to talk about your "theory" and say it should be
presented in the scientific field when it is little more than a
half-baked idea that doesn't even warrant being called a
"hypothesis."
The rules in
the scientific world are that unless you can reproducibly test an
idea, your hypothesis isn't worth the paper it's written on. There
is even a satirical magazine for such things called "The
Journal of Irreproducible Results." Entirely tounge-in-cheek,
it is a place for outlandish musings and so-called experiments
that go far beyond the line of rational thought.
That is the
place for the intelligent design folks to sell their snake oil.
But to argue that an untestable idea even begins to warrant
publication is to demand an exception to the rules simply because
you've got faith.
Take a look
at scientific textbooks. They are filled with provable,
reproducible statements. Physics? They call it the "law of
gravity" for a reason.
Chemistry?
It's a safe bet that burning paper produces carbon dioxide, heat
and water every single time. Biology? There's not much doubt that
photosynthesis produces food for plants and releases oxygen.
Someone
really, really smart must have made the world, since it's too
complicated for me to understand. Yeah, that'll fly.
"The
intelligent design hypothesis has one major flaw: it requires one
to believe that a competent, thinking, omnipotent, divine being
created the platypus: a venomous, egg-laying, duck-billed
mammal." – Anonymous |
