Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Design intelligently, please

At last, an arguement for Intelligent Design that I can really get behind. That it has to do with good government planning rather than this ridiculous evolution vs. religion debate is only common sense.
Well, fun's fun, and I mean no disrespect to people who believe in a creator, or a creative force of some kind, but that is a belief, and evolution is science, and since the two go perfectly well together, it puzzled me why the creation-science folks are so insistent that they don't.

Turns out it's the randomness of evolution that they reject, the idea that life as we know it is the result of "chance occurrence," as one TASC writer grumbles, and not an "ingenious design" that produced the atom, gravity and E=MC2 among other things, all with our wonderful human race in mind.

Good planning, in short, is what evolution lacks and humanity demands, in [the IDer's view], because otherwise life is just a jumble of colliding neurons, amoeba cells and rat genes that could've combined (and might still) to give you a very bad, even ungodly, result. And that can't be right, because it's in the Bible that God created the Heavens and Earth and saw that they were very good; and He created Man in his own image.

In recent years, however, good planning and intelligent design have been the subject of ridicule on the political right, where laissez-faire and free-market philosophies are espoused with near-religious conviction. Or they were until the levees broke in New Orleans, and even George W. Bush must've realized that a little foresight--and intelligent engineering--would've saved him a ton of heartache.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding random chance? One might as well say that the Bush families didnt earn their money, but were given it by God (one hopes not, considering). Thanx to Science and Politics for the link.

I'll end this post with a quote from Rev. Billy Bob Gisher, presumably as a refutation of ID: “Have you ever looked at a platypus?”

No comments: