Intelligent Design -- My Take

As everyone who's paid attention to the "beginning of the world" wars, there has been a lot of talk about "Intelligent Design."

A few thing you should understand about this:

1. What we're talking about is the "Watchmaker God" concept revived for a more scientific age.
   
   Thing is, there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, Genesis says "days," but the word actually used refers to "times." And besides, if a day can be a thousand years and a thousand years can be a day, why not a million? a billion? Two and a third billion years equal to a day? Remember, we're talking about God.
   
   And besides, using a range of billions of years allows for God to exist in a world that develops in the time frame that we observe in the world around us. Otherwise, we make of God a liar (how else do you expect billions of years in the Cosmos when you only give God six days to make everything and six thousand years to bring you into the world?) -- or a prankster at best -- for giving the world and the cosmos a thick patina of lies and misleading information.
   
   
2. A pair of lies is being used to make this theory sound scientific.
   
   
   • First, there is the mistake of assuming that "NonZero" is equal to "Zero."
     
     (To understand the term "NonZero," consider the chance of me putting my fist through the table my computer is on. If you consider that both the table surface and the hand surface is not solid but a mass of negatively charged ions which repulses each other AND that the area underneath is not so much solid flesh but space with small dots of matter (electron microscope level of reality), then you will understand that, given the right circumstances, the hand can go through the table cleanly. Such a chance, however, is so remote that the term "Nonzero" would fit it. Not "Zero," but Nonzero. The difference is miniscule, but important).
     
     Much of the case for Intelligent Design involves the extremely narrow confines of the relations that the various aspects of the universe much fit into to allow itself to exist as it is, never mind us. Stars, galaxies, the Earth, even Humans cannot exist without the forces, their relationships, or other items existing in such narrow margins of error that one must concede that it's extremely unlikely (to state it mildly) for what we see to have come about randomly. The numbers have exponential levels high enough to implicate impossibility (one number is 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 400!!!).
     
     And we're to jump to the conclusion that these extremely low chances equal zero chance. Sorry, but I don't bite.
     
     
   • Then there's the idea that "if there is not enough evidence to point towards one answer, then it must be the other."
     
     Probably the best thing about the scientific method is that it allows the answer "I don't know" to be uttered honestly and as a sign of proper knowledge. While saying "I don't know if Carbon has the ability to bond to four different atoms" is stupid, "I don't know" makes sense for areas where doubt exists -- i.e. how our universe came about, what will happen tomorrow, etc.
   
   
3. Intelligent Design is a decent belief. It makes sense at Sunday School, in Humanities, in Philosophy, in Religion.
   
   BUT IT'S NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, AND IT NEVER WILL BE IF STUPIDITY DOESN'T FUCK US OVER
   
   The fact is, Intelligent Design invokes the concept of "God." "God" is, logically, immeasurable and therefore outside science.
   
   Consider:
   1. If God can be proven to exist, it means He can be measured
      
   2. if He can be measured, He can be controlled (or reacted consciously to)
      
   3. if he can be controlled, he is no longer "God," but a "god." (We become gods ourselves under such a logical outcome, but that's another ball of heretical wax)
   
   Scientific theory, on the other hand, needs a cause and effect to decipher what's happening. It may be strict almost to the point of the word "alwaysL (acidic items burn through other items) or weak and subject to ready change (Sociology), but there's a cause and an effect invoked. Plus that cause cannot be some "Deus Ex Machina" (something brought in to fix things up) like a "God" (Pure wave universe plus "God" equals a Galaxy-filled universe made specifically for us), but somthing that was the effect of another cause.
   
   And, again, the term "I Don't Know" is acceptable, as it does not imply ignorance but lack of knowledge. If the knowledge is easily gotten, there remains the responsibility to find it -- not knowing is not a fault, NOT CARING TO KNOW is.
   
   
4. Does anyone remember the "Creation Science" movement? That's where a bunch of scientists tried to fit scientific knowledge into a six-day creation event. "Creation Science" failed because the idea that billions of years of observation was in actually 6,000 years (give or take a few) and six days was too stupid for anyone to accept as anything but a belief.
   
   So...now there's this new, shiny (and acceptable as a belief AND AS A BELIEF ONLY) theory which allows for scientific observation to stand "unchallenged." It's called "Intelligent Design," and while you need a god to believe it, you don't have the baggage of six days of work making the world, faking the past and making fools of the intelligent.
   
   Is it me, or does this sound like a Trojan Horse brought in to destroy science:
   
   1. Belief in Intelligent Design implies the existence of God (or of the Gods).
      
   2. Belief in God (or Gods) implies a special creation of Man (by dint of consciousness). Thus Evolution goes by the wayside, since one case of special creation implies the rest of the world made FOR man -- as do the social sciences, as it becomes impossible to study humans through animal behavior.
      
   3. Special creation implies a young earth built quickly, since it makes more sense for a God (or the Gods) to make the world quickly rather than spend their time making things "JUST SO." After all, why waste billions of years for a being you can make NOW? A whole slew of scientific disciplines (both hard and social) goes out the window, as time becomes suspect and impossible to trust.
   
   The biggest thing? Simply put, the above lineup is logical. Each step makes sense from the last. But you get to the end, and nothing makes sense.