We have previously discussed numerous biological features that clearly contradict the idea that we were intelligently designed — see Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer.
Faced with the many failures of their magic designer — blessed be he! — and having painted themselves into a legalistic corner from which they can’t invoke the excuse that our defects are the result of sin, some other justification had to be developed by the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
From time to time we post about the Discoveroids’ attempts to excuse the designer’s blunders, most recently here: Discovery Institute: The Designer Can Be Sloppy. Now they’re at it again.
The Discoveroids’ latest is Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches. If you need some background on the vestigial organ issue, the TalkOrigins website lists vestigial organs among its 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. But as you already know, vestigial organs — a few of which retain some minimal function — are exactly what would result from evolution, but they have no place in the products of an intelligent designer.
So what do the Discoveroids say about this problem? First they talk about a Live Science article, 5 Useless Body Parts, discussing the human appendix, tailbone, male nipples, goose bumps and body hair, and wisdom teeth. Then they try — rather pathetically — to explain it all away. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and their links omitted:
What would intelligent-design theory bring to the subject of vestigial organs? Just because we don’t know something’s function doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!. It’s pure brilliance! Then they expand on that thought:
An ID advocate would be curious to investigate and discover the function, not dismiss the whole question out of hand. He or she would start with the assumption that if it’s there, it probably has a function. This mindset would broaden the scope of hypotheses, and stimulate research. A function might be aesthetic, for instance, or serve a function during development but not in the adult.
Then they return to their excuse that the designer’s work may be sloppy:
A function might be imperfect. The appendix becomes inflamed and threatens its host in 1 out of 15 people in the U.S. ID theory does not require that design be perfect, just detectable.
Detectable? An imperfect organ that threatens 1 out of 15 people is the detectable work of an intelligent designer? Then they offer another excuse, one we haven’t seen before:
A function might not be found. After all, intelligent design does not require that everything is designed. That still would not necessarily imply that the organ under consideration is an evolutionary vestige of common ancestry. It might be an unused part of a designed system. We understand that from human design; not all parts of a modular building, or a software system, end up getting used in a given situation. Or, it might be a design that suffered a setback sometime since its inception.
Impressive! We’re skipping most of their article, but here’s the ending. It’s a classic:
Intelligent design, in contrast, offers a host of promising questions for research. One wonders how much further along science would be today if ID scientists had the power to direct research about “vestigial organs” and “junk DNA” instead of letting the Darwin power structure tell everyone, “there’s nothing to see here.” One wonders, further, how much pain and suffering might have been avoided.
After thousands of years, creationists have never come up with a single thing that contributed to medical science, so we’re left shaking our heads in amazement. There’s really nothing more we can say, except to conclude that those Discoveroids would be much better off if they would come out of their secular closet and join with their creationist brethren to say that those design defects are the result of sin. It’s so much easier than all their newly-invented excuses.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.