Dec 9, 2005
ID Controversy – Intelligent Design or Incompetent Design?
According to Don Wise, emeritus professor of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts at Amhurst, humans are anything but the product of Intelligent Design (ID), instead he suggests we are the product of Incompetent Design (IcD). Wise cites our sloping pelvis, which causes chronic back pain for millions, our mouths overstocked with teeth, the appendix and tonsils, our upward draining sinuses, and even the benign enlargement of the prostate leading to a staccato peeing style for older men, as being evidence of IcD.
Intelligent designers and creationists stretching right back to Darwin say the wonderful design of the eye is the ultimate evidence for ID. Wise, however, asks what is so “intelligent” in putting all the receptors behind a membrane layer rather than in front for maximum sensitivity? It has to be IcD. Surely?
Wise was interviewed by Maggie Witlin in Seed Magazine.
Sciencebase FAQ
Contact me
September 6th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Just a belated responce to Joe-Boe’s question. Over the years I have vacilated between theism, atheism, and a real I have no idea agnosticism. This in spite of having given it a lot of thought, reading, and discussion. At present I am a far from totally convinced theist, with a hefty dose of “what you mean by God”.
This seems to be another example of the 2 sides talking past one another. The IDers claim that in their capacity as scientist (pseudo scientists), they are looking for evidence of design independent of who or what the designer is. Their opponents claim they are religionists trying to insinuate their God into science and education. I think this is mostly true, but irrelevant. The lawyer for those damned people on the other side is probably motivated by the $ he’s being paid, among other things. We still need to weigh the evidence and arguments presented. Thats why this is a species of ad hominem fallacy. Both sides do this kind of thing and embarrass themselves with fallacious arguments as listed in any elementary logic book.
Questions of incompetent design assume a particular designer, Orthodox conceptions of God. They therefore presume the further beliefs and motivations of the IDers. This is more theology then anything else. When we start answering arguments that are unstated it can quickly degenerate into a junior high school style “debate” seeing who can outshout the other.