The weaknesses in darwinistic theories have been glossed over for too long. Several new theories have come to favor in recent years to try to fill in the gaps.
First, Scientific Creationism tried to set things right, but it was too easily debunked as religious zealots trying to save themselves work at home. Their kids would learn science at school, and then the parents would have to spend all their time trying to explain to the impressionable young minds how dinosaurs could have lived millions of years ago, when in fact the Bible clearly states that millions of years ago didn’t even happen.
Next, a truly clever approach was devised: Intelligent Design. A sheep in wolf’s clothing, this new theory had many of the trappings of science. Not, you understand, any actual science, but enough soundex to give policy makers and politicians something tangible to argue over. In a nutshell, ID claims that existence (particularly life) is too complicated and unlikely to have emerged without an intelligent agent behind it all.
The biggest problem with ID is that it isn’t a scientific theory. Many have spoken and written eloquently and intelligently on this subject (on both sides), so I will not get into that discussion here. ID is appealing to many who have strong ties to their faith. It gives them a way to fuse many of their beliefs with the cold, dispassionate logic of scientific rigor, creating a sort of Frankenstein’s monster of sci-ligion. This is the future, folks, so you better get used to it.
In an effort to welcome our sciligious overlords, and assist them in the efficient demolition of critical independent thought, I would like to point out that there is room for improvement in the design theory. I am not the first to notice the gaps in ID, but I just thought I’d start this post in order to collect some of the ideas that are floating about.
And I don’t mean FSMism. We’ve all heard of this by now, and it’s a clever idea. Who’s to say what form the designer takes, what its motivations are, and whether it has marinara sauce or has more of an alfredo type thing going on? The debate rages.
No, what I mean is that there are quite a number of aspects to life that cannot be adequately explained by the theory of an Intelligent Designer at all. Stated plainly, there are far too many suboptimal and even frankly stupid designs in living things for the creator to have been all that clever. This is why I believe the next reasonable step is to conclude that the universe was created by: Unintelligent Design.
Now I am not a biologist, or anthropologist, or most other kinds of ist. So when I present evidence in support of UD, I am generally not the one coming up with the ideas. I would welcome individuals with credentials to comment in support or opposition of this theory.
Readers to this post and comments should note that people posting here can basically claim whatever they want in terms of credentials, and there isn’t any kind of verification going on. So you know, take it with a crystal of sodium chloride.