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.