More Recent Comments

Tuesday, July 02, 2024

The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Everything that's happening in the world today is very depressing but there's at least one bright spot. The Intelligent Design Creationists have finally come up with a scientific theory of intelligent design. It's described by mathematics professor Ganville Sewell on the Evolution News (sic) website: Introduction to the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design.

Here's how Sewell desribes this "scientific theory."

Of course, normally if a scientific theory for some observed phenomenon fails, we just look for an alternative “natural” theory. But what has long been obvious to the layman is finally becoming clear to many scientists, that evolution is different. We are not talking now about explaining earthquakes or comets or volcanos, we are talking about explaining hearts and lungs and eyes and ears. How many theories without design can there be for the origin of circulatory systems, nervous systems, and human brains? Design has finally started to be taken seriously by scientists not because there are minor problems with Darwin’s explanation, but because it has become absurdly, blindingly obvious that neither it nor any other theory that ignores design will ever completely explain living things. Contrary to common belief, science really has no reasonable alternative to design to explain either the origin or evolution of life. In fact, we really have no idea how living things are able to pass their current complex structures on to their descendants without significant degradation, generation after generation, much less how they evolve even more complex structures.

That's it? The scientific theory of intelligent design is that evolution has failed and it is now "absurdly, blindingly obvious" that you need design in order to explain the origin of life or the evolution of life.

I'm still depressed. Is this the best they can do after three decades of pushing intelligent design creationism?1

1. Yes.


OgreMkV said...

Interesting, so they admit that there is no degradation in each generation.

That actually kills them. Because scientists does know how it happens. They don't, but that's not surprising.

Joe Felsenstein said...

Kind of ruins the argument that schools should teach the two alternative theories. If one of them is just the assertion that the other one doesn't work, without actually presenting any alternative that does work.

Anonymous said...

"Intelligent" design proponents do enjoy repeating why their ideas are laughable.

Twb said...

I do mostly hospital pediatrics and see children with genetic defects almost daily.
If human design is intelligent, how many tries does it take to convince the designer that trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 don’t work?
If intelligent, why curse entire families with hemoglobin S and sickle cell disease when hemoglobin C is far superior in all benefits and does not cause disease (unless pared with the horrid Hgb S)?

Does the designer just hate these people? Or is the designer stupid? Or just mean?
By professing to see design, one declares being able read the designer’s intent. So the “designer’s purpose is unknowable” cop out for bad things does not fly.

Jathro said...

It seems that IF 'design' is a hypothesis/theory for origins of life and evolution it would be a natural hypothesis/theory not a supernatural one. Scientifically, on what basis do they have that a disembodied 'mind' designs things. I mean we have evidence that we designs things but our 'minds' our embodied in a brain (a very natural/physical thing). IF they want to ascribe to nature properties that can design things well ok - that will be a interesting exploration of science.

They cannot demonstrate the minds are even things per-se let alone that they can be disembodied and have causal relationships to other things or in some circles of theology - nothing. Anyway, these are IDiots.