Software People Inspiring

Intelligent Designer Design

It seems the infectious and largely destructive meme of "Intelligent Design" (ID) might be taking hold here in the UK. I had a lively discussion with a building site foreman called Phil in my local pub last night. Phil is what you might call a born-again Christian. He believes in the death penalty, thinks that gays should be locked up and forced to undergo "anti-homosexuality" treatment, and never gives to charity. He is, in every sense, the Good Samaritan. He has attended religious rallies in the US, and of late he's been applying his notable scientific education (notable by its absence) to the thorny problem of creation.

Phil has undoubtedly been schooled in the half-truths of ID very effectively, and was able to trot out all the established tools of unreason the ID camp have built up over the years. I recall hearing the same argument from another born-again Christian many years ago at University:

"Something as complex and improbable as the human eye couldn't have come about purely by chance"

And you know what, he's absolutely right*. Something as highly improbable as the human eye could only have been designed by a higher intelligence. Let's call this higher intelligence the "Designer", for the sake of argument.

Now, my question is this: how could something as complex and highly improbable as the "Designer" have come about purely by chance?

I have my own theory, which I call Intelligent Designer Design, which I hope to see being taught in science classes any day soon. More recently, I've been working on another theory about creation, which I'm tentatively calling Intelligent Designer's Designer Design.

I will set up a proper scientific institute for the further study of IDD and IDDD. My aim is that by 2012 we will have a comprehensive theory of IDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.

Hey, a man can dream, can't he?




* Actually, he really is right. Blind chance is only 1/3 of the evolutionary mechanism - with replication and selection being the other 2/3, neither of which are random. It's an interesting counterargument to the theory of evolution - and a fascinating debating strategy. If the opposing view is logically correct, simply misunderstand it and then you can win your argument by actually agreeing with it...

---