To the general public, hypothesis and theory are one in the same, in reality they are opposites. A hypothesis is essentially a guess as to the nature of something; a theory is a replicable, definable, specific set of facts regarding the nature of something.
We can’t imagine any other functionality for the various elements of this “thing” and its related components so it must be made by “God”. Good guess!
It was only a few short centuries ago we thought lightning unexplainable and therefore made by “God”. We got that one, and a host (pardon the pun) of others, completely wrong as well.
My point here is not to pursue a scientific denial of “Intelligent design” but rather a practical one.
The human body is covered with sweat glands. All very efficiently cooling the body, the overwhelming majority of them doing it without any readily apparent evidence (other than perhaps a dark stain), or side effects. Yet sweat glands having the same “intelligent design”, but being unfortunately located under arms, have a by-product of the same process, aroma. Unpleasant, pungent, and pervasive, necessitating the human designed deodorant industry.
Why the difference? Shouldn’t we be entitled to higher expectations from divine omnipotence?
Bodily wastes
According to various medical studies, the average human produces 1 to 3 pints of gas daily and eliminates this through an “intelligent design” process known as farting, 14 to 23 times per day! This fact of human digestion applies across the board to both genders, which, in light of the fact that men revel in their ability to fart with gusto, and women deny its very existence, which of us is demonstrating a willingness to share honestly now?
I try not to dwell on this fact too long because it inevitably leads to considering how much of this “production” I am exposed to on a daily basis, while walking through the “Fog of Gas”. If I think too much about this I will end up looking like all those pedestrians in Tokyo wearing masks. Maybe that’s why they all appear to be squinting.
Now being male I enjoy the sound and fury of a good fart as much as anyone else but once again, shouldn’t we expect more from omnipotence?
Then we have the different methods of fluid elimination, by this I mean standing or sitting. This has led to more conflict over seat up seat down arguments and has likely led to most divorces and perhaps even war. The French invented bidets (also known as butt bubblers); no wonder the Germans attacked them, twice.
“Designing” a method requiring perfect aim and concentration to avoid overshooting the target is just begging for trouble. Not to mention the conflict between the required timing and dexterity to prepare for the release of the fluid in light of the speed at which the kidneys filter beer.
You haven’t attained manhood until you pee out the window of a moving vehicle.
There are other benefits. It does allow writing in the snow, distance competitions (which require elevation), and other important male bonding activities, but I question its value as evidence of divine intervention.
Sexuality
Think about this for a moment, where is the intelligence in this process? I don’t mean the fertilization process, that’s evolutionary; I mean the steps necessary to begin that process. Intelligence is not evident.
The “designer” placed the “portal” for the delivery of the male element needed to impregnate the female directly next to a “portal” designed to eliminate waste. Like the old joke about putting a recreation area next to a landfill. No wonder there’s confusion in some sexual practices; I mean it is right next door.
It would seem to me that this design sounds less like “Intelligent” and more “low bid government contract”.
In light of these, and many, many more, examples I find these hypotheses relating to “Intelligent design” to be unquestionably wrong. I do not doubt the sincerity of the proposers of such ideas, but I do question their motivation. In this instance, it seems readily apparent that injecting God into a serious discussion of “evolution” vs. “Intelligent design” is based on factual deficiencies.
I understand they want their concept of a personal “God” or religious faith to be a real part of nature, but it is misguided. “Intelligent Design”, for it to be applied to specific circumstances, relies on two false assumptions, and thus fails.
Given the observation of an object or phenomenon, we make two assumptions,
- The object is irreducibly complex and can have no “evolutionary” development path leading to its current state of existence
- Since it cannot be reduced further to independently functioning components, God built it
The first statement makes the assumption that we will “never” be able to further reduce complexity and understand the object in a more fundamental way.
The second assumes the existence of “God” and reason for him to design such things.
Which leads me back to the examples as cited above. If one defines “God” as omnipotent, perfect, and interested in us, why is it such a big deal if I leave the seat up?
