Deinonychus antirrhopus

Intelligent Design: Making a Fool

Making a fool of yourself is more like it.

I find it sad that people object so strongly against the four paragraphs that the school board included in the biology curriculum. You would think with all the clamor that something horrible was being forced upon the students, yet it was a mere statement acknowledging another possibility for how life came to be. Can’t those who favor evolution admit that there might be other possibilities for the origin of the universe? Are people so closed-minded that they won’t recognize any theory other than evolution?

Intelligent Design (ID) is not an explanation about how the origins of life. Heck ID isn't even an explanation of anything when you get right down to it, but ID does, sort of/kind of, deal with the diversity of life.

Further, as I have argued in the past presenting something that is not science to children as if it were science is doing those children a huge disservice. When people in authority lie to the children in their charge it goes beyond merely what is and is not good science. It also sends a message to children that when you believe in something strongly and in a position of power it is just fine to lie.

Life is so complex that any rational, thinking person would have to at some point acknowledge there is at least the possibility that some intelligent design was necessary to bring about all the complex life forms that we find upon earth. The likelihood of all the life forms and laws of the universe coming about of their own accord is about as likely as a house being built by itself. If the materials that a house is made of were laid out on a building lot, how long would it take for evolution to bring that house together without any help from a person? No amount of time will do it. Yet a house is relatively simple in comparison to the complexity of life forms.

Gee, maybe we need to force adults to sit through a class on logic and then pass a test before being allowed back into the real world. There is one glaring problem with the above argument. It relies on a logical fallacy: faulty analogy. Houses are no alive, that is they are not living organisms. Living organisms on the other are alive (I would hope this was obvious). The fact that something is complex does not neccessitate a designer. And given the facts we do know (how DNA mutates and recombines and so forth) the notion of organisms evolving is not really all that implausible.

I think intelligent design is a far better explanation for the complexities of the universe than evolution.

And I think that invisible bunny rabbits with lollipop whiskers is an even better explanation. Maybe we need something other than just what some people think is good science in determining good science.