Kansas Genius Solves Evolution Controversy

We know it’s not fair, but whenever we find an article about evolution and creationism from Kansas, it brings back memories of The Kansas Crazy Days in 2005, when that state’s school board actually decided to re-define the meaning of science so that it would include supernatural phenomena — thus allowing creationism to be taught in science class.

Well, Kansas has come through again. We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Evolution Implies Intelligent Design. Great title! This thing appears in the Lawrence Journal-World published in Lawrence, Kansas. The bold font was added by us:

If evolutionists are correct that biological life developed through a process of gradual changes, then it is far more likely that some type of Intelligence Designed life rather than that life developed without any intelligent controls.

Toto, we’re definitely back in Kansas! All we need now is to see Kathy Martin flying by on a broomstick. Don’t leave us, dear reader. It gets better:

Development through gradual change is the process humans use to produce things from automobiles to literary works to computer programs. The original automakers developed a simple vehicle with some type of motor, wheels, chassis, etc. Subsequent engineers modified these various components to produce faster, more efficient and safer vehicles.

Ooooooooh! That’s brilliant! We design automobiles, therefore … yes, there must be some celestial intelligence that designs toads! Of course! Hey — we have a contest for you, dear reader. How many howlers can you spot in this next paragraph? We find one about every three words:

Two groups of True Believers control the debate over the origin of life. The Evolutionists believe that life could only have developed from one original cell through a slow process of gradual changes that was not controlled by any type of Intelligent Being. Creationists believe that God created life and the only way God could have created life was to zap each individual species into existence fully developed.

Admit it — that was really great! Let’s read on:

Creationists don’t explain why God would go to the trouble of designing life that can develop from a microscopic sized cell to something the size of an elephant or whale and then initially make each one fully developed instead of creating the cells and letting them develop in some nutrient rich medium. A being capable of creating a universe would be capable of creating an environment in which individual cells could develop into fully sized forms.

This guy seems to be independently re-inventing the concept of theistic evolution. How wonderful that he’s offering his original insight to the world. We continue:

Both groups misunderstand the concept of Intelligent Design. The Intelligence wouldn’t necessarily be the God of Abraham.

The Discoveroids take that position, officially. They have to, for litigation purposes; but they don’t believe it and neither does anyone else. There has never been any misunderstanding about the nature of Intelligent Design, except maybe in Kansas. Here’s more:

The Designer might be inhabitants of a distant planet who put the necessarily biological products in comets and sent them throughout the galaxy. A Designer might have controlled the initial development of biological life and then allowed it to change without control. The Designer probably would not have made the first member of each species fully developed as Creationists believe.

Wow! Now this guy is proposing panspermia. The fertility of his mind seems to have no limit. Moving along:

The biggest argument for Intelligent Design is the extremely sophisticated characteristics of biological life, especially animal life.

[...]

An Intelligent Designer could have developed subsystems like eyes, hearts, etc. by making specific genetic changes, but development of such subsystems through random genetic changes would be mathematically improbable at best.

Evolution is improbable. What a powerful argument! We’re skipping a lot, of course, but here’s the final paragraph, in which both sides of the debate are given advice:

Creationists and Evolutionists would have more believable theories if they would switch one of the components of their theories. Creationists should be claiming that God started with a single cell and developed different species from it. Evolutionists should claim that different species developed from separate cells with the necessary DNA to produce animals with hearts, skeletons, etc. as the animal developed.

We’re impressed. What new ideas will Kansas come up with next? Perhaps some original thinker in that state will suggest that the earth isn’t perfectly flat. Don’t laugh. After seeing today’s article, nothing is too improbable for Kansas.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Kansas Genius Solves Evolution Controversy

  1. With the caveat that I only read your excerpts so far:

    This guy is far too politically incorrect for the Discoveroids, even though, ironically, they have admitted exactly the same thing. In a far more subtle way the Discoveroids have framed ID as both “accommodating all results” of evolution, and being the alternative, and “not creationism” – all at the same time. The big difference is that they know what to say when, and to whom, while this guy is clumsily learning it (I’m reminded of “We was with you at Rigoletto’s” alibi in “Some Like it Hot”) .

    While Discoveroids react to any “Darwinist” who dares to criticize their scam with “you don’t understand ID,” a safe bet is they’ll bite their lip over clowns like these.

  2. Kansas is flat, so the world must be,

  3. The paper’s comment section was disappointing. Neither good defenses of evolution nor creationist whackadoodleness. Really, Kansas, where are your cranks when I’m in need of amusement?

  4. This guy wants to re-make the Intelligent Designer in the image of man, warts and all. Yeah, that’ll work. How could any other anti-evolutionist object?

  5. Sorry, MD2020, Kansas is not flat. The western edge is seven feet higher than the eastern.

  6. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams

    Alright already . . . so what if we’re topographically flatter than a pancake?

    Some of us are just plain damn tired of the idiocy. Easier to crawl into a bubble and let it float us away from Brownbackistan a la Glinda of the North. Our Governor & House are determined to take us back to the ’90s. The 1690′s.

    The besteamed gentleman who blogs at the Lawrence paper also does so at the Topeka paper, following the ancient farming tradition of spreading manure far and wide.

  7. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams says: “Some of us are just plain damn tired of the idiocy.”

    I find it a continuing source of amazement.

  8. “‘Evolutionists’ ‘should’ ‘claim’…” why? Because the evidence says so? No, just because it makes evolution seem more believable to this guy. Whether it’s actually, like, factual, doesn’t matter.

  9. @Anonymous: what? I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you agreeing with the article or not?