Saturday, August 06, 2005

Intelligent Design for Dummies!

Note: I am a guest blogger. The usual blogger is busy teaching Shakespeare how to stack boxes to reach a banana.

Yee-haw! Our cowboy president, George Bush, has just started his annual month-long vacation in Texas. You can be sure Bush'll be huntin', drivin' his truck, holdin' the babies of redstaters, and spendin' time with important people like Ariel Sharon and Chuck Norris. Not coincidentally, "The Dukes of Hazzard" was just released, to glowing reviews.

Prior to starting his 31 days of jerky chewin', pot smokin', and pen pallin' with convicted murderers, Bush paused to endorse the latest pet Orwellianism among Christian groups: "intelligent design."

If you like irony then you've hit the motherlode! "Intelligent design" is the stupidest thing since Ashton Kutcher and Paris Hilton's movie version of "I Dream of Jeannie." (It's inevitable.) As a scientific theory, it falls apart faster than Robert Novak sitting next to James Carville.

Its first premise is that everything complex must have a designer. Hey, I have an idea -- let's base our "alternative scientific theory" on a mindless axiom!

Complexity only implies design if you are thinking within the tiny, limited scale of human existence. If you find a watch on the ground, it is reasonable to conclude that the watch was made by a designer. If you find a Swatch Watch on the ground, it is reasonable to conclude the watch was made by a swishy designer. These things we know because we live them day-to-day; this is precisely why using them as analogies is disingenuous.

To think that every type of complexity implies design is as un-scientific as assuming, with no evidence or reason, that Newtonian Physics applies at quantum levels. Or that because limited amounts of antibiotics is beneficial, antibiotics all the time is even more beneficial. Or that if Pat Sajak is a great game-show host, he must also be a great talk-show host.

The other problem with the "intelligent design" argument is that it leads to an infinite regress (in movie terms, that translates into "a plothole so big Vince Vaughn's head could fit through it"). If the complexity of the world and its various organisms logically implies a designer, then OF NECESSITY this designer, complex as he/she is, must have been designed.

So who is the God who made God? Was it God's mom? What about God's grandpa? Hey, maybe God has a long lineage that leads all the way back to an Adam-God and Eve-God! But did Adam-God and Eve-God have cosmic belly-buttons? Hmmm.

If you give the "intelligent design" argument any scrutiny it is easy to see that it's just the same old Creationism, but instead of having 1970s Creationsm mullet hair, "intelligent design" has a more practical, snappy haircut like the male cast of "Friends." I mean, who isn't going to like an argument with the word "intelligent" in it?

"The *intelligent* argument? Why, that has my vote! Along with the clear-skies initiative, and the Patriot Act, and the Super-Fun-Go-Go Totalitarianism. I love them all! Goodbye, 'Tragedy of the Commons'! Hello, Tragedy of the Sah-weeeeeeet!"

So forget reason and common sense! Let's teach "intelligent design" in our Kansas classrooms so that bitch Dorothy never questions the Wizard again!

1 Comments:

Blogger Sean said...

As for Dukes of Hazzard…
Nothing has summed it up better than CNN’s review that “this flick is a car wreck with boobs.”
-Sean
WaywardPuppy.com

11:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home