A Virginia Liberal

I haven’t been updating much recently what with the change in schedule, but now I’m back into the groove of things so more updates should be coming along soon.
Wait for it…. now!

Alright, let’s jump right in by finishing off Intelligent Design.

My last post on ID ripped apart its shoddy internet representation. Now, I will refer to several stories published about them in the middle-of-the-road media.

A couple of months ago, Newsweek’s cover story was entitled “Doubting Darwin”.

“I.D. has nothing to say on the identity of the designer or how he gets inside the cell to do his work. Does he create new species directly, or meddle with the DNA of living creatures? Behe envisions as one possibility something akin to a computer virus inserted in the genome of the first organism, emerging full-blown millions of generations later. Meyer’s view is simply that ‘we don’t know.’ He declines even to offer an opinion on whether people are descended from apes, on the ground that it’s not his specialty. The diversity of life, in his view, is a ‘mystery’ we may never solve.”

So let’s get this straight-their entire hypothesis (Intelligent Design does not qualify as a scientific theory) is that an Intelligent being created all life-and they know nothing about the Being? That seems like it kind of puts a damper on their entire theory.

I guess we could instead look at Behe’s view-that the Intelligent Being placed something like a computer virus inside the earliest organism (i.e. cells) that emerged millions of years later. Think about it. If the Intelligent being Designed everything, why exactly would it take millions of years to evolv… I mean “emerge”? Isn’t the entire idea of cells turning into life forms an idea Behe has fought tooth and nail? Behe seems to have forgotten which side he was on when he ‘enivsioned’ this possibility.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design has no evidence, let’s take a look at how many scientists support it. Both IDists and Evolutionists tried to get signatures from scientists who believed in their cause. Intelligent Design got 350 signatures. However, in a nod to Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionists only took signatures from scientists named Steve-and they got 528, more than half again what Intelligent Design got. And that’s JUST from guys named Steven. Seriously. Imagine if you will two boxers going into the ring. One, like Bugs Bunny, puts cement blocks in his gloves. The other has everything but a toenail tied up to a post. And the toenail guy wins. That’s how incredibly overpowered ID is in the scientific community.

So if you hear a Christian Scientist tell you that Intelligent Design has ‘growing support’, as I have many times been told, dope slap him. I mean really. These people seem pretty obviously thinking impaired-or, more likely, honesty impaired.

And the next time you hear a story on NPR or CNN about Intelligent Design, listen closely. They never say ‘a new theory’, they always say ‘the successor to Genesis, this time couched in the terms of science”. By its very definition, “couched in the terms of science” means that someone is trying to make non-science sound like science. This is similar to when automatic toothbrush commercials say that their brush is ‘highly advanced’ ‘the next generation’ ’superior’ or that it’s ‘brilliantly designed’. They’d probably say all that with a light blue backround, because light blue is high tech. They might say all that and have a “lite” blue backround, because highly advanced pieces of technology always involve poor spelling-and light blue.

But you look at this, and you know. It’s the same old toothbrush, it just wiggles when you turn it on.