NYT: “Unintelligent Design”
I saw an article on nytimes.com a few days ago about intelligent design (the negative slant of course) and Darwinism
But if we can’t infer anything about the design from the designer, maybe we can go the other way. What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock’s tail or the human male’s nipples, might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer. Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.
***If, for some reason, the link doesn’t work and you’re required to log in to the site, you can use the following login info.
username: justmakeitfree
password: justmakeitfree
Let me know your thoughts on this article. I sure know I’ve got my own opinions about it!
Loading ...
Feb 26th, 2005 at 11:24:10
I have know clue what any word of that post was about lol…
Feb 26th, 2005 at 17:36:33
Wow, that guy is an idiot! Please tell me how you can test Darwinism? You can test natural selection, but that is different that Darwinism. If it is possible to test Darwinism, then it has already been disproven. There is no proof, and it has never been observed, that one species has completely changed into another. Then he talks about diseased, pain, and the human reproductive system being shoddily designed. It is obvious that when he is knocking “intelligent design”, he is taking a shot at Christianity. Well, these things are easily explained and have nothing to do with how we were designed. It has to do with the fact that Adam and Eve sinned, staining the perfect world God created and allowing these imperfections to enter in it.
And what in the world is he talking about unbaptized babies entering into lingo? I don’t know what “traditional theology” he has studied (obviously he knows nothing about any theology), but a babie or child is not held accountable until they reach the age of accountability to where they know and understand about sin. And when he says that Darwinism allows intellectual freedom, what he is saying is that you can change it to fit what you think and if it is proven false you can change it. And saying God used evolution is ridiculous. It contradicts what is in the Bible. I’ve posted my thoughts on that before, so I’ll leave it alone this time. Well, those are my thoughts on this article. My final analysis…..he needs to do more research before posting such garbage.
Feb 26th, 2005 at 17:45:05
Sorry, there are a few typos (not sure how you spell that) in there. But you get what I’m saying!
Feb 26th, 2005 at 17:50:15
If he thinks the giraffe is poorly designed, he should read this:
Giraffes…animals that stand out in a crowd