[lbo-talk] myth in Kansas

arash at riseup.net arash at riseup.net
Wed Nov 23 13:06:29 PST 2005



> Also, ID theorists are curiously inconsistent
> in their explanatory strategies. They allege
> that the complexities of living organisms,
> especially so-called irreducible complexities,
> can only be explained in terms of the actions
> of an intelligent designer. While many ID
> theorists like to play cute and refuse to
> publicly specify the identity of the alleged
> intelligent designer, it seems apparent that
> any such putative designer must be even
> more complex that the organisms that it
> allegedly designed. But if it is the complexity
> of living organisms that requires us to
> appeal to an intelligent designer for
> an explanation, then what explains the
> complex design of this intelligent designer?
> Who or what designed the intelligent
> designer(s)?

I've wondered about this too and I'm guessing the response is something like ,"since we can't observe the creator we can't necessarily say it is of irreducibly complexity," but nevertheless your example does show the inherent goofiness of the position. It's similar to First Case refutation:

"I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. " - Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Another implication of ID I find amusing is that since the movement is all about championing phenomena not well explained by evolutionary theory, shouldn't they champion homosexuality? According to the ID logic, since homosexual behavior can't be definitively explained in evolutionary terms (though there are decent proposals) it must have been directly created by the designer (god). Shouldn't that then give homosexuals prized status in an ID-informed Christianity? I'm itching to see how that example goes over great with the fundamentalists.

Arash



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list