I've just read this snippet on our ABC site this morning on how the "Intelligent Design" argument is being dug up again, as an alternative to evolutionary theory. I'm not sure I even want to get into this debate, but this presentation of pseudo - scientific speculation as being in the same league as more rigorous theory, in order to prop up a backward and at times oppressive worldview is more than I can stomach.
In any case, (as Martin will inevitably point out), intelligence of a "Designer" is not so much the issue as benevolence. The existence of an intelligent designer might explain some biological facts (though I seriously doubt this), but please pause and take a look at the world around you. If you were omnipotent, do you think you could do better? Without answering several other important questions, this push for the acceptance of an intelligent designer does not come within spitting distance of putting a christian god on the map. Rather it indicates something much more ominous, an intelligent designer that is not so benevolent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mr Douglas, You are correct. The primary issue is the omnibenovolence of any designer. Further, I agree that any partially compitent designer would have done a much better job. The simplest proof I can conjure that there is no designer is the existence of ugly things.
(Take this thought as you will).
Post a Comment