Is the universe a crapshoot? Did everything happen by accident? Are we all the result of some wacky chance-based theory like Darwinian evolution? Or is there evidence of an intelligent cause in the shape of an “unseen higher being”?
Atheist scientists themselves admit that things look as though they have some kind of purpose. In science talk, they have “high information content.” There’s tons of evidence for this. You just have to look for it. Look at a mouse. Or one of those tasty little brown birds. Or the Senate majority leader. Can we postulate that they came about due to blind, purposeless causes?
I don’t think so!
If you’ve been to the church of your choice lately, you perhaps know that to prove intelligent design (ID), we follow what is called the scientific method. You may even have learned about this in school. It has four stages, known as stages one, two, three, and four. First, stage one, we make an observation (O).
So here goes: all over the place, in just about every part of the universe, we find evidence of what ID scientists call “complex specified information” (CSI). This means (a) things are complex (complicated), and (b) they are specific--in other words, everything is what it is, and not another thing.
Take a computer, for example. It’s (a) complicated and (b) not another thing. What could be clearer?
And you thought doing science was hard!
Now we’ve got the observation, we make up an hypothesis (H) about it. This means, of course, we get an idea, google it a few times, kick it around a bit, and wonder how it would look on a bumper sticker.
OK! So, if things are complicated, could they have been designed by an intelligent designer???
Why not! Great hypothesis!
The third stage of scientific method is the experiment (E), or “science project” bit.
Could our dog have been intelligently designed? Can we prove it? If so, how? This is a tough one! She pees on her feet. If she were intelligently designed, she’d know to turn around and face uphill. No, actually, I think she may be missing a part. We’d better pick another experiment. How about a penguin. Look at the way penguins spend months standing in the snow and ice taking care of their egg. ID scientists call penguins “irreducibly complex” (IC), which means if you tried to rearrange them, it wouldn’t work. They’d abandon their egg. They’d pee on their feet. Their feet would ice up. The whole thing would be a total horror show!
Say you're like a materialist penguinologist, though, and you're observing a penguin, and you go, “Well, it looks like it’s intelligent but we can’t say it’s intelligent, because we’re not allowed to.” That’s just nuts! What’s more, it’s unscientific. Call it a miracle, call it some other bad name, but the fact remains that the materialistic view of penguins is retarded. Imagine building a penguin backwards (what’s called “reverse engineering”) and you’ll see what I mean. Start with the egg.
No, that can’t be right, because I mean penguins do start with the egg. Or, which came first, anyhow, the penguin or the egg?
But there’s no need to get into that--penguins are obviously totally IC. I mean, everyone likes them, but who understands them? I’m that way myself as a matter of fact.
After the experiment, we are ready to reach a conclusion (C). Ready?
Q: Could Darwin have been right in thinking everything happened by a series of random processes, which took billions of years? First you had fish, then dinosaurs, then people. Or perhaps the dinosaurs came before the fish, who knows.
A: In the first place, Darwin didn’t actually think this. He’s been misinterpreted. In any case, it appears he got most of his ideas from a beagle--and you know how “they” are! You can’t trust them with cats or other noncanine pets. And they tend to howl. I wouldn’t be surprised if they pee on their feet, like certain chocolate labs I know. Probably.
Darwin began by studying barnacles, which don’t seem very IC and are also quite different from penguins, even though they both live in the ocean. Anyhow, barnacles are normally hermaphrodites. But Darwin found that some barnacles were beginning to change. They were turning bisexual. He found tiny males hiding out in their shells, which he called “little husbands.” Yes, it's true! “The male organs in the hermaphrodites are beginning to fail, and independent males ready formed,” he wrote to his friend Joe Hooker (no, this was another Joe Hooker, not the one “hookers” are named after).
So Darwin found that even hermaphrodites could change if they really wanted to. They could become bisexual and hatch their own boyfriends. (Actually marrying them might not be legal in most states, thank God!) What’s more, the “husbands” could be independent males. Perhaps this could even happen with congresspersons! Starts to look like a plan, doesn’t it?
Thinking about congress led Darwin to earthworms. So he came up with this neat experiment to see if worms were intelligent, which he thought they were, based on preliminary observations: he made some fake “leaves” out of paper, and he found that the worms pulled them into their wormholes by the pointy part. “We may therefore infer--improbable as is the inference--that worms are able by some means to judge which is the best end by which to draw triangles of paper into their burrows,” Darwin inferred.*
Now there are many writers for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other so-called liberal media of that ilk who have never learned to do this. Maureen Dowdy is reliably reported not even to know what “infer” means. Charlie Cabbagehammer couldn’t tell one end of a fake leaf from the other to save his life! And as for George Will, well, he never really will, will he?
You see where we’re going with this? I mean if barnacles have way more interesting sex lives than most embedded journalists, what would even be the use of “evolution”? If earthworms are smarter than hotshot “talking heads” who actually appear on TV, did this just “happen” as a result of some kind of cosmic accident?
No way those creepo materialist scientists are going to make sense of swinging barnacles and nightcrawler geniuses! (But don’t tell PETA about them or they’ll feel obliged to start getting heavy with the live bait crowd, like they did with the fur freaks--and the vegans are spread way too thin on the ground as it is.)
Darwin speculated there might be things called “gemmules” that made it all happen, tiny particles that run around in the body doing good stuff--“early stem cells” would be one way of putting it, and we know stem calls are God’s own . . . I mean, ID. He explained this as what he called “the theory of pangenesis.”
He may originally have got the pangenesis idea from Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet de Lamarck, who is famous for his belief in “the inheritance of acquired characteristics” and also, of course, for explaining why giraffes have such long necks. Lamarck was undoubtedly French, as you can probably tell from his name--a “very complicated moniker,” or VCM, in scientific terminology. Even so, he must have been a Republican, at least to judge by his attitude to capital gains.
But as we saw above, Darwin got most of his ideas from the Beagle (for some reason they always write it with a capital B).
However, there are some--and I’m not going to mention any names--who say Lamarck was the Beagle’s real name. (It would be a good name for a dog actually, wouldn’t it, especially if you pronounced it Lame-marck, like they do in Kansas and places like that, but what do they know?)
None of this matters though, because it turns out that Darwin was not really into Darwinism at all. “Thank God, I’m not a Darwinian!” he said. Darwin was like totally incredibly cool, and he definitely believed in ID on a personal basis. Although he never admitted it in public, some claim that he had, in fact, been “ID’d again,” as they say. Just like me!
It seems then that it was the Beagle who was really “into Darwinian evolution.” That dog hated freedom (and America and Christmas too, naturally). Most likely the nasty thing was just “into” Darwin for everything it could get! You know how greedy dogs are. They always want more lunch.
Moreover, there’s no evidence of beagles in the fossil record.
So anyhow, to wrap things up, here’s the conclusion (C) to our experiment:
Darwinism = O + H + E + C = IC + CSI = ID
Dang! Where does the VCM go?
--Bijou Psipsinoula
*C. Darwin, The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms (London: John Murray, 1881), p. 90.
Preternatural biologist Bijou Psipsinoula gets her kicks out of torturing cute, helpless little creatures to death as slow-w-w-w-ly as possible, before partially eviscerating them to check for proof of ID. Then she stashes them under a bed. She never eats them. Why should she when this incredible felinocentric universe of ours contains an apparently unlimited supply of gourmet “Chef’s Blend” kibbles in a variety of exciting shapes and flavors?
Nous sommes
le 21 Ventôse, An 217
0 comments:
Post a Comment