Navigation

Search

Categories

On this page

Cthulhu loves the little children...

Archive

Blogroll

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.

RSS 2.0 | Atom 1.0 | CDF

Send mail to the author(s) E-mail

Total Posts: 154
This Year: 0
This Month: 0
This Week: 0
Comments: 280

Sign In
Pick a theme:

 Monday, 07 November 2005
Monday, 07 November 2005 18:38:08 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) ( )

Now that the judge in PA is deliberating about whether science is actually science or should be merged with theological studies, it is worth considering what Intelligent Design actually means. I think this entry and the one it links to really hit some interesting points.

There's this odd assumption that ID means there's a god and that this god cares. But ID doesn't imply a god. And even if The Designer were a god it doesn't imply that this god likes us or cares about us.

Millions of people play various The Sims games, designing and directing the lives of countless millions of Sims. Do those players really care about their Sims? Some do, some don't. Some are just playing a game. Who's to say that some Designer-god is any different? Who's to say that our "designed" reality isn't just a super massively multiplayer high-tech video game and we are the Sims?

This past weekend I visited my grandmother. She has Alzheimer's and so we had the same conversation three times while I was there. She's pretty good at remembering things from farther into the past, but can't remember recent events in the 5 minute to 5 day range... It is hard to imagine that this is an example of design. As a computer programming professional I'd call this a bug, a flaw. So if there is a designer, this Designer-god is surely far from an ideal of perfection. Or this Designer-god is insanely cruel, or just insane.

But in the end it is the utter lack of science that makes ID foolish. Intelligent Design is a flawed hypothesis, in that it can't be tested or proven. It is impossible to devise tests one could apply against ID to prove or disprove it. That very fact renders it as a flawed (and therefore unscientific) hypothesis. Sorry, but QED.

Comments [0] | | #