So let me just go on record to clear up a few issues.
1. Intelligent design (as a science) is the biggest load of crap ever. Let me just see if I understand the basic premise: Things are too complex, we can’t imagine how evolution could have produced this, hence these things must have been created by some higher being. Now, let me leave for #2 the theological issues associated with this, and let’s delve into this issue on its scientific merits.
I guess the scientific question here is: How did organisms acquire their current suite of traits?
And as I understand it the hypothesis is: Someone/thing gave those organisms those traits.
And the evidence is: Well, things are really complex and difficult to understand.
In order for this basic premise to make sense, then we must actually have things that are so complex our current explanations (namely, genetic evolution) fail to explain the outcome. I don’t really think such complexities exist. It doesn’t matter if most people can’t understand how our current explanations explain the outcome. What matters is whether or not our current explanations do explain the outcome. I’m pretty sure there are people out there who understand (or can begin to understand) how evolutionary theory lead to current biological complexity.
However, I’ll even allow the possibility that there are some complexities which we do not understand. I’d still have to say that we don’t have evidence those complexities are incapable of being explained. I mean, we’ve existed as humans for a long time (even if you only believe in a 6,000 year worldly existence), and we have been thinking about this for (at most) 200 years. The scientific community didn’t really begin to figure this out until the Modern Synthesis (1930-40s), and so we’ve only been thinking about this seriously for the past 60 years. Compare this to other things that humans have thought about, like Food. Humans have been thinking about food forever (relative to us) and it wasn’t until the middle ages that we came up with the sandwich. The point? I’m willing to give scientists a little more time to figure out if evolution can explain the seemingly inexplicable.
The bigger point is that I don’t see any evidence, nor am I convinced any evidence is possible that would support a hypothesis of “We just can’t explain it.” I mean, that’s exactly the same thing as saying “We don’t understand, it must be magic.”
Now, if you want to talk about the possibility of intelligent design (or creationism) outside of science, I’ve got my thoughts on that below.
2. Theologically there can never be any evidence for the existence of God (at least for a Christian god). Evidence of God would immediately invalidate faith in God. You cannot have faith in something which is verifiable (at least not after it is verified) since that wouldn’t be faith anymore. That would be fact. So all the fundamentalists who continually try to prove the existence of god are either a) totally misguided or b) only likely to prove the existence of a non-Christian god or a non-god-like creator.
3. I don’t really understand the controversy over evolution. There should be no conflict between science and religion. I have heard people say “Don’t you have a hard time reconciling the sermons you hear with the science you hear?”
Well, obviously the answer is no. Partly it is because I understand that physical proof denies faith (I suppose internal proof is faith), but mostly it is because I also understand that God can create a world that looks and operates and IS old. Let’s say you believe that God created the world 6,000 years ago. That changes nothing about the science. The best evidence still says that the world is over 4 billion years old. So, God created a world that was already 4 billion years old. You think this is a problem? I’ve created characters in books who were 80 years old, and that doesn’t mean the story has to be 80 years old. If God is an omnipotent diety then why can’t he do one better and create an old world?
4. Evolution is a fact. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. The only open question is how life began, and that isn’t really an open question. That’s a question for which we have a working theory that makes predictions which are being and have been tested. People like to call evolution a theory, that’s not quite true. The evolutionary explanation for biological diversity is a theory, but we’re not talking about ‘speculation’, we’re talking about an idea with an unbelievable amount of supporting evidence. To put it in terms everyone can understand: We have more evidence for evolution than we do for Osama Bin Laden’s involvement in 9-11.
5. And while we’re at it, quit referring to evolution as a ‘random’ process. It most definitely isn’t random, that’s the whole point. Evolution by natural selection is a process that essentially ‘directs’ organisms to become more fit. This is the same principle by which market economics work: Clearly not a random process.
6. I suppose the final point here would be: What do I think/believe?
a. The evolutionary explanations for the biological diversity on earth help to tie together everything we know and understand about life on earth. With it we understand more about medicine, agriculture, and the ecosystem services we depend upon (clean air, clean water, etc.).
b. I doubt the universe spontaneously came into existence. I am unsure whether God (whatever you want to call him) plays an active role in our lives, or our after-lives, but I feel God exists (or existed). No matter how you cut it, the universe comes back down to a singularity, and at some point there had to be a beginning (sorta), believing anything about that point or before that point requires some sort of faith. I have that faith. I have faith that God made the world. I am always awaiting further spiritual enlightenment.
c. Organized religion is the most dangerous force on Earth. Organized religion creates hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy, and lies. Doesn’t matter how wonderful some religious people have been, the vast majority of religious ‘followers’ have spent human history killing non-believers, oppressing women, and just generally treating any ‘non-followers’ as if they were evil. As a result, I can’t imagine attending any church on a regular basis. I will, as always, remain open to the possibility that some church or religious group will/does behave up to my high standards….but I haven’t seen it yet. This could be an entire essay in itself.
d. I generally think that anyone attempting to foster intelligent design (or creationism) in a science classroom can no longer be considered an intelligent person. I would have to be convinced that you could be a biologist and believe, on a scientific level, that intelligent design is anything but a load of sh!t. I mean, even if there are problems with evolutionary explanations, I really don’t think throwing your hands up in the air and saying “It’s just too difficult. Must be magic” is science.
Some NBA thoughts:
Ok, yes, I’m aware Kobe scored 81 points the other day (and I left him off my all-star ballot). However, I really want to second what several other people have been saying: That isn’t really basketball.
Although, I suppose a strong case could be made that this is what the NBA has been looking for and geared to produce for the past twenty years. I mean, David Stern took those great personalities of the 80s (Magic, Bird, Zeke, Jordan, Nique) and he used them to make the players bigger than the teams. The promotions, the hype, that all started to revolve around stars at that point. The teams began to take a backseat then, and now we’ve got an NBA where teams are geared around individual talents, and individual talents become bigger than the team. I hear, all the time, how big stars have to “Take over at crunch time” or “Step up.” What is that doing? It’s creating an atmosphere where big stars are the focus, and team play isn’t. Take the 76ers-Celtics game I talked about a week or two ago. The story-lines before, during, and after the game revolved around Ally-I and Pierce (and a little about C-Webb and Ricky Davis). Why not talk about how Kyle Korver did more than just hit a 3 to send the game into a second overtime. Why not talk about Dalembert’s 18-10-7 (blks)? Or how the team defense continually broke down late in the game for both teams? The reason is because the blame and the credit for the 76ers and Celtics success will always lie with the stars.
So it was only a matter of time before some team was assembled where the star took all the shots (and I do mean all the shots). If anything Kobe was not shooting enough, and I almost guarantee we’ll see more of this kind of thing in the future. People like to compare Kobe to Jordan, but the real comparison is with Allen Iverson. If Iverson was eight inches taller, then he’d have scored 81 points three years ago. Kobe shoots like Iverson, with the mentality Iverson had before he took over the point guard duties.
Interestingly, this ‘star’ mentality was also present in the NBA past. How exactly do you think Wilt got 100 pts anyway?
So, having said all of that, what do I think of the Lakers?
Let’s just say that I think the Lakers would be a 50-win team if you replaced Kobe with Richard Jefferson, Ally-I, Ray Allen, or Steve Nash (I mean, Nash is worth 25 games by himself). These people who think the rest of the Lakers are worthless aren’t watching the same games I am. Doesn’t anyone remember that Dwayne Wade-Lamar Odum Heat team that took the Pacers to Game 6? You’re telling me that the Luke Walton, Brian Cook, Andrew Bynum, Chris Mihm, Kwame Brown frontcourt is so much worse than the Brian Grant, Udonis Haslem, Malik Allen combo the Heat had that year? And as for G and swingmen: Caron Butler is the only Heat player that stands out. I think Kobe wins 25 games for you by himself, but he’s going to prevent any of your young players to develop and he’s actively preventing Lamar Odum from becoming a dominant player.
Edit:
By the way, "The Incompetent Ninja" has officially been moved from the lists of comics I check regularly to the list of comics I check "when I have nothing else to do...like nothing...nothing nothing." If you start something like that and decide not to update EVER then just let me know so I can quit caring.
I'll comfort myself with fresh "questionable content". MMMM.
