Reply
Wed 21 Dec, 2005 12:35 pm
In an announcement sure to rock the scientific world, Dr. Jack Harvey, a noted biochemist, claims he has found several flaws in the scientifically regarded theory of "intelligent design".
"There are several aspects to the theory that just don't fit together", Dr. Harvey claims. "Penguins, for example. Why would any intelligent being design such a bird, unless as a cruel joke". Harvey claims that the birds awkward motions and inability to fly are not intelligent at all. "In fact, Dr. Harvey continues, "this bird is the work of a total moron".
Dr Harvey also claims that mosquitos, flies and many forms of bacteria are also not intelligently designed. "Not to mention ostriches", Harvey says, "Have you ever seen a more ridiculous looking animal?"
Harvey also mentioned the lazy Sloth and the cuddly yet worthless Koala Bear as examples of creatures made by a less-than-intelligent design.
Harvey claims that even human beings have faults which a truly intelligent being would have solved before placing them on Earth. "Some humans are fine", he said, "while others tend toward obesity or develop some sort of illness. A truly intelligent creator would not have allowed such discrepancies".
Dr. Rob Weinstein, a respected molecular biologist, disagreed with Harvey's statements. "Harvey has no idea what he's talking about", Weinstein stated, "even the smartest of us make little mistakes. To err is human!"
Some scientists say that Havey's claims bolster the ridiculous idea of "evolution".
Does no one wish to debate the intelligent design theory?
Before anyone can talk of flaws in any design, it is necessary to know the purpose for which the design is intended!
In the examples quoted nobody knows what the intentions were (if indeed they were intelligently designed).
Secondly, the design is one thing, but we need to remember that during production (or reproduction in this case) errors arise, and unintended consequences arise. It wouldn't surprise me if there exists no single human being without at least one 'fault' built in!
The story goes that rug makers in the middle east always put a flaw in purposely to show that only their god is perfect.
Maybe God put a flaw in all of us to show that only his God is perfect.
That may explain why my Persian rug keeps falling apart.
Re: Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory.
NickFun wrote:"There are several aspects to the theory that just don't fit together", Dr. Harvey claims. "Penguins, for example. Why would any intelligent being design such a bird, unless as a cruel joke". Harvey claims that the birds awkward motions and inability to fly are not intelligent at all. "In fact, Dr. Harvey continues, "this bird is the work of a total moron".
Not only are the designs moronic, but someone keeps dropping asteroids on the planet every scadzillion years and killing everything. There's some serious klutziness going on as well.
Leave the penguins alone!!!!!!!!!!! They're cool.
Anyways, it is kinda weird to design a platypus? Also, it's kinda cruel to design all these viruses that mutates from person to person.
Yeah! What Ray said! I love penguins. Everything has its purpose in thiis world. Did you ever think maybe they are just here to make cute movies about them and make you laugh? :wink:
I like gooney birds. They run awkwardly to take off, then either tumble head over heals landing, or smack into a building.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about MA, yersinia pestis just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling all over, and then I just can't help but giggle.
They may have "flaws," but they also have a sense of humor!
See middle of page
Well, they don't look too stupid to me! (Unless you are the one getting hit that is!) Loved it!
NickFun wrote:Does no one wish to debate the intelligent design theory?
The theory of ID doesn't contains flaws, it
is a flaw.
PS; if you think penguins walk 'awkward', you should try watching a dolphin walk!
I think some creatures are the product of immediate circumstance. Like what Fractiles are to random digital design some creatures attribute were created durning a time when DNA can become most active and change at a rapid rate. Spin offs of the design are bound to be but the basic geneticDNA is the same amongst us just different arrangements. But the golden rule of ! to 1,618 also keeps us all in line to some greater pre determined order.
Since when did ID meet the requirements of being a 'theory' anyway? Only in the loosest possible definition surely.
It's more a non-sensical belief than a theory. There is not an iota of evidence to support it. Of course, some Christian sects believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
I am sorry but in all fairness ID can be called a theory. Practically anything that a person could use to attempt to understand the world, a society or a philosophy could be called a theory.
Whether of not a theory stands up or corresponds to observations merely reflects on the validity of the theory, not whether it's a theory or not.
Gods, Great Spirits, ghosts (to explain why things go thump in the night) Capitalism, all can be used to explain various observations that human perceptions are capable of.
And the validity of any theory is a bit subjective to say the least
I have a theory that a giant blue rabbit created the universe. Is mine a legitimate theory?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace