Main Menu
Welcome
Ok, this is getting all too silly. For all non-US readers, there is a very loud group of apparently radical christian fundamentalists trying for the last 120 years to fight the fight that the rest of the world never even bothered: the one against setting humans into the evolutionary perspective.And they're doing so rather successfully. In a country that ranks close to a number of third-world countries in terms of public education standards (according to the PISA tudy), a majority of telephone polled people believe human beings were created by a god: Harris Poll.
There is also a strong movement to bring these religious views into the science classrooms (see e.g. the story about Bryan Leonard here and here, or US president Bush's opinion).
Phrases that come up in news like these are "intelligent design" and some "evidence" that warrants a "debate" or "alternative".
So just to clarify a few things once and for all:
"Intelligent" design?
Personally, I'd like to have a few words with the genius who, according to some people, designed my knees. They're clearly not up to the task. I'd also love to exchange a few words on his grand idea of putting a fragile concatenation of bones as the carrying structure at the dorsal end of an upright walking organism (instead of, for instance, a flexible exo-sceleton or a hydraulic system). Finally, I'd like to share with him some of my thoughts on the brilliant design of the human esophagus, with such a neat connection to the trachea, that laughing, breathing or talking during eating or drinking can become life-threatening.
If I were an engineering professor and an undergrad would give me a blueprint with such basic flaws, I'd probably fail him no matter how well he designed some other details.
Ask your doctor: If the human body were a car, wouldn't it qualify as a lemon?
So who had the idea calling that guy "intelligent"?
If I were an engineering professor and an undergrad would give me a blueprint with such basic flaws, I'd probably fail him no matter how well he designed some other details.
Ask your doctor: If the human body were a car, wouldn't it qualify as a lemon?
So who had the idea calling that guy "intelligent"?
"Evidence" against evolution?
- So far, I have not heard about even a single piece of evidence against evolution. I only hear that evolution is supposed to not be able to explain certain things. Well, if a scientific theory that desn't explain everything right awyay justifies the invocation of the divine, you better start believing some god is pulling your legs, because otherwise you'd be flying out into space: nobody can explain (yet!) how gravity works either. Evolution, welcome to the club, there are many things we don't understand, yet. That's why there still is science. Otherwise we'd all be unemployed!
- Good evidence against evolution would be either to catch the divine act "in the act" (pardon the pun). Haven't heard of that happening, yet.
- Another good piece of evidence would be to show that a trait in an animal that does not lead to an increase in offspring (i.e. not adaptive and not a by-product) would spread through the population. Such a trait would clearly violate evolutionary rules and be great evidence against evolution as we know it.
-Inheritance of acquired traits is another good example.
None of these scientific (falsifying) objections have ever been observed and instead of trying to find such instances, creationists do the only thing they can do: they pull the issue on the political platform and fight on the backs of their own children.
Way to go!
- Good evidence against evolution would be either to catch the divine act "in the act" (pardon the pun). Haven't heard of that happening, yet.
- Another good piece of evidence would be to show that a trait in an animal that does not lead to an increase in offspring (i.e. not adaptive and not a by-product) would spread through the population. Such a trait would clearly violate evolutionary rules and be great evidence against evolution as we know it.
-Inheritance of acquired traits is another good example.
None of these scientific (falsifying) objections have ever been observed and instead of trying to find such instances, creationists do the only thing they can do: they pull the issue on the political platform and fight on the backs of their own children.
Way to go!
To sum it up: if you want to believe in design, go ahead. There are people who believe in astrology, flat earth and stuff like that despite of any evidence, so who cares. But don't call it "intelligent", that's an insult to all the intelligent people on this planet. And don't even try to call your belief scientific, until you have gathered some scientific evidence of the nature cited above.
It took the catholic church centuries to accept that earth really isn't the center of things anymore. When will you guys realize that humans are just as flawed, suboptimal and evolved as every other creature on this planet? There's no crown on creation, better get used to it.
For some more on this topic, see my Meta-Biology page.
UPDATE: Don't forget to write to the Kansas board of education and tell them that the designer can only be the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Posted on Wednesday 03 August 2005 - 11:00:21 comment: 0
{TAGS}
{TAGS}
You must be logged in to make comments on this site - please log in, or if you are not registered click here to signup
Render time: 0.1102 sec, 0.0050 of that for queries.