Our minds on media.

Musings on the effects of media on cognition.

ID Folks barking up the wrong tree

It’s ID. It’s Intellgient Design theory. It’s a clever name for God-made-it-so-there theory. Or better yet, the evolution-doesn’t-quite-cover-everything-so-let’s-chuck-it theory. Frankly, that’s about the only substantive argument they have. WARNING: I’m not going to defend ID theory. I’m not even going to argue against it. Others, have done far better than me at pulling it apart. I’m beyond skeptical. I’ve read the ID materials and philosophy and there is no doubt in my mind that this is neocreationism and that there is no theory. There is no evidence to examine. It’s bunk and definitely not science.

But what’s funny to me about intelligent Design theory is that I think they’re barking up the wrong tree when they go after little fuzzy animals and particularly cells. They claim that there is an irreducible complexity to these things that implies that they had to be designed. (Chronology of the appearance of these kinds of cells is apparently unimportant to them) But I was just reading about the Strong Nuclear force between protons ( in an article on cold fusion. Here is a force that exists only within one millionth billionth of a meter. That’s 0.000000000000001 meters for anyone who’s counting. This force, stronger than any other in the universe, holds all matter in the universe together. That seems like a far more obvious convenient complexity to the universe. There’s no “alternate theory” like evolution to get in the way either. As of yet, there is no explanation as to why the strong nuclear force is the way it is. That looks more like the fingerprint of a benevolent creative force than cells that are “complicated”.

« Previously: