I find this post insightful in many ways, but I have an issue with the intelligent design theory as analysed in the post. There is no doubt; the universe is an incredible place. The fact that it can support intelligent life is undeniably amazing. But what is that supposed to mean? There could be a million reasons behind this. But why be quick to jump to a conclusion that offers no tenable hypothesis? The universe is billions of years old, humanity has only been in existence for a few hundred thousand years; and yet as recent as three centuries ago we explained epidemics with absurd theories like miasma. How much could we possibly know about the complexities of the origin of the universe at large when we hardly know more than 5% about the oceans that cover 70% of our planet? I don’t understand how the wonder of the unique balance of the universe that enables its existence calls for propositions of an intelligent designer. It’s baffling, no doubt about that; but what do you expect when our understanding of the universe is mostly limited to the stars, planets and galaxies that make up just 4% of the universe. What if the answer to these complexities that we are so quick to explain away with this intelligent designer blanket that’s not backed by any empirical evidence lies in the other 96% comprising of the dark matter/energy that astronomers cant see, detect or even fully comprehend todate? I find it presumptuous for one to claim to know the designer of the universe and the living things in it. How far can one go in defending this proposition? Do they care to know where this designer came from? Or that’s how far we have to push before one finally admits that that they don’t know anything and we’ll be back to square one. I don’t think talking about this impeccably balanced nature of the universe like it’s a miracle that only requires the hand of a God proves much. Our knowledge on this subject is still so little. I can only compare this to how our ancestors attributed lightening and volcanic eruptions to gods. What if more intricate things are happening in a realm beyond our comprehension; things that make this overly gloried perfect alignment of nature seem like a negligible detail of the much bigger picture (for clarity, when I say bigger picture I don’t mean God). He uses the metaphor of how repeatedly throwing paint at a canvas can’t form the Mona Lisa in a bid to show intelligible things can’t happen spontaneously. Perhaps they can’t, but what if certain amounts of a certain kind of paint could react with certain properties of the material to form a spontaneous and complex chemical reaction that was not intended in the first place? I know this sounds farfetched, but who knows which among the plethora of possibilities can happen in 13 billion years? If we had the authority to question the ways of this intelligent designer, I would ask what its/his plan was for all the billions of years earth existed without any form of life; or why they left unicellular microorganisms to reign over the Earth for 4 billion years before creating man, the ultimate intended inhabitant. Personally, I am not sure where I came from, perhaps I’ll not live long enough to find out. But I am not in such a rush to find out that I’ll settle for whatever is thrown at me however preposterous it sounds. Peter this is a more comprehensive analysis of what I was trying to say earlier.
Posted on: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:42:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015