We thought the issue of how “intelligently” we were “designed” was settled years ago when we wrote Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer. In that post, we considered the “design” of the human body and decided:
No other conclusion is possible except that the so-called Intelligent Designer is a boob. A dunce. A clown. Or, as we have now officially designated him, a buffoon.
But there was one feature we didn’t mention in that post. The Discovery institute is now filling that gap with a new post by Michael Egnor — that’s his writeup at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. His post is titled Nathan Lents and the Wisdom of Testicles. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]:
Egnor begins by linking to a blog article — Evolution’s Worst Mistake? How About External Testicles? — by respected biologist Nathan H. Lents, and he says:
Darwinist Nathan Lents thinks testicles are nuts.
The Discoveroids are a classy outfit. Egnor’s beginning paragraph goes on:
Or, at least, he thinks they’re poorly designed. He thinks they should be inside the body, not outside. Says Lents, author of the new book Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes [Amazon listing] … .
You may want to read Lents’ blog article for yourself, but here’s a bit of what Egnor quotes from it:
From an evolutionary standpoint, after all, testicles are the most important thing about a man — without them, he wouldn’t exist at all. And there they are, just sitting out in the open. Exposed. Vulnerable. What kind of design is this? … . If nature had an intelligent designer, he or she would have a lot to answer for. But since natural selection and other evolutionary forces are the true designers of our bodies, there is no one to question about this. We must interrogate ourselves: Why are we like this?
You get the idea. Egnor gives his thinking on the subject:
Is testicular design “an example of poor design”? Perhaps not. Testicles, unlike bone marrow, make cells that are used only intermittently. They are stored until just the right moment, and then it’s a dash to the finish line. From a design perspective, it makes perfect sense to grow and store sperm outside the body, where it’s cooler (in the fridge, so to speak), where their metabolic needs are reduced. Why have them all revved up in the scrotum, wasting energy swimming in circles, doing nothing? When they are released into the female reproductive tract, sperm warm up and come to life, and, expending prodigious energy, race to the ovum. Sperm are produced and stored in a cooler external environment for the same reason we refrigerate food; for preservation, until it’s needed.
So is testicular design pretty good? I suspect so, but maybe it is a design flaw. Reproductive physiology is elegant and complex, and there’s much to be learned. What Lents does, ironically (Darwinism is nothing if not ironic), is use intelligent design science to discredit… intelligent design.
Aaaargh!! Let’s read on:
After all, if there is no design in nature, there is no poor design. Lents makes the classic Darwinist blunder: he denies that intelligent design is science, and, in the same breath, provides devilishly cunning scientific arguments against it.
Are you following this? Really? We’re not. Here’s another excerpt:
“Poor” design presupposes the inference to design. But there are poor arguments — like Lents’s argument against the wisdom of testicles.
The “wisdom of testicles”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We found the title for our post. Here’s more:
Design science compels us to look for deeper purposes in biology. That is exactly what Lents is doing with his arguments that some design is “poor design.” He is relying on intelligent design science to explore purposes in biology.
And now we come to the end:
The investigation of purpose in biology — the evidence-driven exploration of good design and poor design — is not nuts at all. It’s just good science.
At least we learned one thing from Egnor’s post. If we ever find ourself in a conversation with a Discoveroid, one thing we’ll never do is demand that he show us his evidence.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.