Thinkberry
Rational GoodnessArchive for Intelligent Design
Thank God For Kidney Stones?
Fazale Rana over at Reasons To Believe argues that a jagged mineral buildup tearing its way through a kidney is evidence of a perfect designer. No no, not in the way that literally going to hell would likely suggest a designer. Kidney stones are merely a consequence of the best system like rape is a consequence of free will, neither of which God could fix apparently.
The significant portion of the article focuses on one of the causes of kidney stones, excess uric acid. This breakdown product of DNA & RNA isn’t particularly soluble in blood, having the effect of accumulating in the urinary tract. Rana attempts to refute the claims made by evolutionists that this imperfect process would indicate imperfect design. He counters with “This perspective fails to consider, however, uric acid’s full range of metabolic properties, some of which are beneficial.” He then goes on to list one, disguised as several: it’s an antioxidant.
The most prominent instance of blunder is the description of the cause of excess uric acid production: “an inborn error in metabolism”. It sounds as though the argument is basically “your system can fuck up a bit, but when that happens, it’s not always all bad”.
Minor cancer prevention is not evidence of a perfect designer that could have abolished cancer. Sickle cell anemia is not evidence of a perfect designer that could have abolished malaria. Sorry, creationists, but your “fall of man” analogy doesn’t help you here. God made a jungle, and cast us out into it, but at least he loves us enough to give us a stick to protect ourselves with. Great. . .
Atheist Anti-evolutionist?
For quite awhile I wondered if there were any atheists that rejected the Theory of Evolution. Though religious folks are divided on the matter, for the most part, secularists have been in agreement. However, I never noticed the one right under my nose: David Berlinski. As a member of the Discovery Institute, I had assumed he would agree with the intelligent design mantra of that organization.
The first thought is intrigue as to what would remain in respect to the origin of life should both the God hypothesis and the theory of evolution be rejected, and how could one not side with either? Then I realized he’s actually in the second best position (the first being accepting of evolution, of course). If one is inadequate, then the other doesn’t win by default. It must also be supported by the evidence. His view, not motivated by religious dogma, rejected both as insufficient, and then takes the perfect stance when without explanation: “I don’t know.”
Future of Intelligent Design
It’s obvious where the creationists are going next with their tireless efforts to overthrow Darwin: “teach the controversy”. After the death knell of teaching of creationism and intelligent design, being ruled unconstitutional as religiously motivated pseudoscience, it’s obvious they’re not bringing a designer back into the picture just yet. However, as we recall, their beef with evolution is only superficially scientific. These are the people that regard evolution as a source of ills in the world, as expressed in this cartoon. Teach us we come from monkeys, and we’ll act like monkeys, huh? Well, anyhow, the Discovery Institute has a textbook out called Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism.
Teaching the strengths and weaknesses of a theory sounds pretty good, right?
Well, if that’s really what it was, then yeah. However, it doesn’t contain legitimate critics of the theory, just the rehashed junk like the supposed irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum that has already been debunked. Secondly, teaching REAL problems with a theory are fine. The trouble arises when one theory is focused on with a death grip for obvious reasons.
I’m reminded of the Cobb County “warning” stickers on biology textbooks:
“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
This sticker tells kids “We’re absolutely sure about everything in this book except for evolution, so you don’t need to critically consider cell biology, ecology, etc.” Why limit it to biology? I won’t even get in to that one, or that the sticker suggests theories are opposed to facts. I much prefer Ken Miller’s rewrite:
“This textbook contains material on science. Science is built around theories which are strongly supported by factual evidence. Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
Thirdly, it would be nice to teach the strengths and genuine weaknesses of every idea, however, we have to consider who we’re teaching. These are freshman biology books for a class in which evolution is a small part. Not only are these kids lacking the know-how to understand these higher end biological concepts to really understand these strengths and declarations of weakness, but the courses don’t have enough time to cover it, much less prepare students to analyze something outside a general biological overview. Such things, if cogent, would be better saved for a higher end biology course.
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
Ken Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University, a top opponent to Intelligent Design, as well as a christian. This video is a bit long, but fantastic. It covers ID in respect to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the case that ruled the teaching of ID unconstitutional.
Topics of Interest:
1) History of the trial
2) Debunking Irreducible Complexity
3) Tackling the poster children of ID, including the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system.
4) More evidence for evolution (likely covered in that category on Thinkberry)
