The International Writers Magazine:REALITY CHECK
PRAISE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN VERSUS EVOLUTION
"Man was made at the end of the week's work when God was
- Mark Twain
over Creation. This is a good one, and apparently, now a growing topic
to be meandered by school boards and the federal government. Just last
week our God President chimed in for this new fangled version of Creation
Theory called Intelligent Design. The push by Christian groups, now
running things around here, is to promote this Intelligent Design alongside
Evolution for a practical theory of human existence. Im not really
sure how either theory is necessarily practical; I nevertheless weigh
in, and have weighed in for sometime, on the side of Intelligent Design.
Surprising as this may seem to most of the readers of this space, since
the Creator God takes more shit than a little here, and the idea of
"intelligent design" surrounding any species that considers
me a member, there is no concrete evidence human beings came from ape
or some kind of slimy creature emerging from swampland. Having stated
this, the likelihood of the whole weeklong workload creation thing for
an omnipotent deity is slim and none, and in all seriousness, slim just
left the building.
But if I may, in my limited capacity for any kind of scientific acumen,
let me beat the drum for one of what theorists like to define as two
schools of Evolution: Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro deals
with small changes within a species which adapt that species to be better
suited to its environment. Macro claims that through major genetic mutations
one species can evolve into another, so over a long period of time fish
could evolve into insects, birds and mammals. From this concept it's
suggested that all life could have evolved from simple chemical structures,
thus life could have resulted from natural processes without the need
for a creator.
This is silly on principle alone, especially when considering Isaac
Newtons Third Law of Motion which states simply that "for
every action there is a reaction", or as my good friend and celebrated
scientist, Cunliffe Merriwether cited in his groundbreaking work, Quitting
Science, "I have some reason to believe that aliens from a certain
planet, XPC-25, in the Auroral Cluster, were in fact the ones who fornicated
with monkeys on this planet, producing the eohippus and other humanoid
ancestors." This is all well and good, but, of course, Merriwether
spends good portions of the book dissecting what he claims were Newtons
other lesser-known laws like "Newtons 4th Law: If You
Build It, They Will Come. Or Newtons 5th Law: Out
Of Sight, Out Of Mind. Or his 6th: Its All Good".
And then theres my personal favorite, "Newtons 9th
Law: Hey, Whats the Big Idea?" But crazy as the
both of these men seem to you and me, they are scientists, and they
live and breath with what can be proven, and not surmised or debated.
And these are men who believe, if not in a Creator God, then some kind
of source to the universe and existence therein.
Yet most scientists are vehemently opposed to a discussion regarding
Intelligent Design, despite the fact that beyond the Big Bang Theory,
no one seems to be able to sufficiently explain where the Big Bang came
from, or more precisely, why macro-evolution is fancy when suggesting
how life developed from one species to another, but not so much on how
we jumped from no life to life or from unconscious to conscious. What
about the complexity of DNA, anyway? Wheres the solid evidence
that this is random? Even in the simplest life forms, we have a number
of different and complex components which must all be in place for life
to occur. Take any of the components away and you no longer have life.
The building blocks of living beings are complex and are not independent.
How can these components have been assembled separately apart from pre-existent
life? Or as my brother once posed to me over a burrito, "You shift
that axis of ours an infinitesimal amount and were a dead rock
floating through space." This is where science becomes as thorny
as religion. It becomes a defacto religion with contradictions and huge
holes in the postulate. Hey, believe what you want to believe, but all
Im saying, along with our God President, is consider all of the
alternatives to the once unshakably resolute Macro-evolution theory.
Now, chances are were not getting to the bottom of how humans
came to be in this space today, but we can be certain that to dismiss
Intelligent Design as the ranting of religious fanatics is unfair. I
am not a religious fanatic, unless you consider Fletcherism a religion.
I am wild about Fletcherism. But sticklers would deem it more of a practice,
really; specifically the practice of chewing food until it is reduced
to a finely divided, liquefied mass, which was originally advocated
by 19th century nutritionist, Horace Fletcher. Thomas Edison was a devout
Fletcherist, and its hard to argue with that guy. But, aside from
Fletcherism, I despise religion mostly. However, to reject some of the
concepts and theorems based on our superstitions and cultural divides
is irresponsibly capricious and hardly scientific.
I think producing, say, the Missing Link is as paramount to the discussion
as producing Noahs Ark or the bones of Adam and Eve.
This reminds me of a more acceptable theory of Creation in the form
of Intelligent Design from author and Biblical historian, Elaine Pagels,
who recently put forth the once accepted theory among Israelites that
one larger, more centralized Source Figure sparked another lesser Creator
God, who, by all accounts, screwed the whole thing up. This may help
to explain why this lesser, more jealous and spiteful, Creator God runs
amok in the Torah flooding and burning and turning humans into salt
when peeved in the slightest, while the Israelites continued to insist
in literature and oral tradition that the unspoken One loved and nurtured
its Creation per se.
Anyway, Im sure thats nonsense too, but it is a least an
attempt beyond monkeys, aliens, Big Bangs, Let There Be Light, and Darwinism
to explain things. Whos to say who is wackier? Not me, not Christians,
not science, and certainly not the US government.
Teach it all, and let the kids sort it out.
© James Campion August 8th 2005
also Deep Throat and other
stories in our Comment
Legal - the case for drugs
We Want Bolton
Den of Iniquity
Rove - superhero
Castro must Die!
James Campion is featured in Hackwriters monthly - he will return in
all rights reserved - all comments the writers' own responsibiltiy -
no liability accepted by hackwriters.com or affiliates.