I picked up this book at the library to see if it would challenge my thinking and maybe help me better understand the reasoning of secular scientists. The book has several valid arguments against the concept of ‘intelligent design', including bits about probability and the simplicity of one-celled organisms. However, there were a few points in the book that I cannot resist poking fun at. Of course, not being a trained scientist from a prestigious university, I cannot understand any of this on my own and should just follow the teachings of the majority of qualified scientists, who obviously know better. Ahem.
This is shamelessly paraphrased, biased, and otherwise irreverent.
1. ‘Dogs and cats share certain characteristics. Therefore, they must have a common ancestor.’
WTF? Oh, yea, that’s real good science, that is. What ever happened to verifiable and repeatable? That’s right, I learned that in junior high, so therefore it doesn’t apply to real science.
2. ‘Death is equilibrium’. Death brings balance to the force, I guess. So is genocide just equilibrium on a large scale? Since mankind is a random accident, and morals grew out of necessity, the majority of secular scientists would have to admit mass murder is simply survival of the fittest. Should I believe them on this point to, or is now a good time to insert my religion?
3. ‘Blueprints require a designer, but recipes don’t, so cells follow recipes, not blueprints.’ This statement is a summary from a couple pages of writing. Obviously, these men don’t cook.
4. Wasp nests are built through a ‘dumb process’ (exact quote) and do not prove that someone designed wasps to build nests, because, you know, not all wasp nests are perfect, and um, yea. They’re just a bunch of dumb animals getting together and not knowing exactly what they’re doing and a wasp nest just happens to emerge…wow, I wish I was that dumb…
5 Nature is ‘self-organized’. Which means my children are just un-natural. Yes, yes, through a naturalistic process, a hurricane organizes itself and promptly wreaks havoc on the rest of nature. Ants organize themselves, as does DNA and the congress. This therefore proves that God is not necessary. Nice leap of logic. I would almost call it ‘faith’.
And my personal favorite….
6. ‘Evolution erases evidence of itself’. That explains why there is no evidence for it, of course. Oh, oh, but the fossil record! How could we forget that? ‘With a few bones and a good theory, we can prove anything!’ Again, somewhat paraphrased, but that’s the basic premise behind the ‘proof’ that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
I’m not making this stuff up, folks. Remember, I don’t have a degree, so I’m not allowed to!