So the basis of the neo-Creationism movement, “Intelligent Design (ID),” is that the universe is so complex it could only have been created by God.
OK, I have a question. It’s a serious question, containing an insult, sure…but I ask anyone who believes in ID to consider the question part seriously:
By believing in ID you establish YOU’RE not intelligent and imaginative enough to understand the complexities of the universe, but are you saying that God is also incapable of creating a perfect universe that has come to this point through the scientifically explained processes of evolution (as well as a few hundred other processes involving geology, cosmology, biology, astrophysics….)?
People who believe in ID seem to me the kind of people who in basic High School chemistry class couldn’t grasp how to figure out how many valance electrons an atom has and so threw up their hands saying “Oh it’s impossible! I can’t understand this, so it must not be important or necessary.”
It’s interesting that almost all believers of ID are non-scientists and nearly all scientists dismiss ID as crackpot pseudoscience and can show mountains of evidence of how ID fails.
I’m pretty certain that wrapped up in the ID believer’s mistaken deathgrip of their mythology, the desire to believe ID and dismiss real science also stems from both fear and “sour grapes” attitude toward intellectualism. “Them scientists, with their hoity-toity attitudes and religion-like culture, so arrogant and snobby. They must all be wrong.”
If you can’t do an algebraic logarithm because it’s too complex, does that mean algebraic logarithms don’t exist?
I’m pretty certain that God is capable of creating a universe in which the laws of physics and nature and chemistry and natural selection and on and on ad nauseum, would lead to the universe we have today with the billions and billions of various animal and plant species. After all, for what reason aside from evolution would men have nipples? *grin* I’m sure God, who evidently is some humanoid person-figure (who if he is a “he” must be male and thus must be sexual if he has a mammalian gender) said to himself “Self, I think men should have a completely useless feature such as nipples. Oh, and lets put in a useless organ such as the appendix and a uselessly elongated tailbone.”
Com’on. Is God really as unintelligent and uncreative as your average human Christian fundamentalist?
The awesome complexity of the universe and the fact that it’s the product of billions of years of confluence of forces and events is godlike in and of itself. It doesn’t need a humanesque thinking creature in a white robe and long beard to wave a hand and say “And now I shall make the stars (BANG!) there they are….and now the sun (which is ALSO a star, by the way….) In fact, it’s very much less imaginative to think of a deity creating the heavens and earth through sheer will (which nearly every religion/mythology has done to explain the universe) than it is to understand evolution. Coming up with a human-like deity creating the universe is so obviously a product of humanity’s childish lack of understanding of the science involved in existance. The sheer complexity developed over the eons since the (proven) Big Bang is divinity.
Besides, and this is a biggie, your average Christian fundie who got decent grades in High School and maybe even in a BA degree and now works as a retail manager, or youth counselor, or accountant, mechanic, or computer technician, or whatever, of course can’t comprehend how it’s completely possible and natural and definite for this complex universe to have evolved. But biologists and geologists and chemists and molecular botanists and cosmologists and geneticists and medical researchers and pretty much any practitioner of a hard science who have done nothing all their life except study the world and nature and examine it and test it for answers, they understand the natural evolution of the universe into its current complex state.
Isn’t it funny how fundies who will fight to the death to prove there is an “absolute morality” and no such thing as relativism, will also fight to the death to prove that science is all relative? Let’s see, religious doctrine which has been the root for so much misunderstanding, so much hatred and persecution, and requires extensive study of translations and interpretations, that’s absolute–but science which strives to do nothing else but find answers to natural phenomena and test it and test it again and continue testing and refining and solidifying to the most pure understanding while identifying and rooting out errors and misunderstanding, that’s relative?