WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Scientific evidence supports intelligent design, which appears in the Springfield News-Leader of Springfield, Missouri, nicknamed “The Queen City of the Ozarks.”
We’ll copy most of today’s letter, omitting the writer’s name and city, adding some bold for emphasis and our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. The letter-writer begins by telling us that he’s responding to an earlier letter (13 February) by James Vokac: Darwin’s evolution theory passed many tests. Then he says:
First of all, I would like to point out that despite the thousands of hours scientists have dedicated to proving the theory of evolution, it still requires as much faith as believing in the theory of intelligent design. Many scholars and scientists, in their attempt to prove evolution, have come to see that much of the evidence points toward intelligent design. The more we know, the more we find out we don’t know.
That’s a very promising start. The letter has only begun, yet we’ve already been told that science requires faith, loads of scientists are flocking to Oogity Boogity, and the more we know, the less we know. Let’s read on:
Secondly, Mr. Vokac brought up the example of the eye. What he is referring to is called irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity argues that the eye could not have evolved through small, incremental changes over time.
Oooooooh! Irreducible complexity — the first (and only) thought that enters a creationist’s mind whenever he sees a biological structure. We continue:
Since the components do not function independently, over time each would likely be eliminated by natural selection (which chooses systems that are already working well) as being “unnecessary” before they could all get together to create a functioning eye.
Wow! That means a primitive eye in some ancestral species is going to get eliminated rather than persist and — by tiny, incremental improvements — evolve into something more advantageous. Who knew? Here’s more:
This means that the complete eye would have had to appear spontaneously in its entirety. However, the eye is much too complex an organ to be the result of a random, undirected process.
Brilliant thinking! Michael Behe, the guru of irreducible complexity, couldn’t have explained it better. Hey, maybe the intelligent designer is a cosmic chicken! See: Chickens ‘one-up’ humans in ability to see color.
Darwin himself stated that if any organ existed that could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, his theory would break down (if only Darwin had known then what we know now!).
Yes, if only Darwin could have been instructed by today’s letter-writer. Another excerpt:
The example of the laryngeal nerve in mammals serves to illustrate that macro-evolution tends to lead to genetic defects and inefficiencies, as defined by the Law of Entropy.
Aaaargh!! On with the letter:
Belief in a creator does not require you to check your brain at the door. There is much scientific evidence to support intelligent design.
We frequently encounter allusions to such evidence, but somehow we’ve never seen any of it. Anyway, now we come to the letter’s end:
To learn more about intelligent design, read “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel.
[Writer’s name and city can be seen in the original.]
Your Curmudgeon always strives to be helpful, so here’s Lee Strobel’s website. Get over there and learn something, before it’s too late!
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.