People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, December 26, 2005

On Intelligent Design

There is no subject about which I can write and get more hatemail than that of Intelligent Design. My most recent weblog entry on the theory that life is too complex to be accidental - that it might very well have been "designed" (read it here) - ended with a quote from Euripides:
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
Well, in the last few days, I've been called everything but foolish. Stupid, yes. Ignorant. Simpleminded. Even neanderthal (Get it? Evolution ... neanderthal?). The people who wrote telling me I didn't know what I was talking about failed to understand my point completely, which was: I don't know what we're talking about - and neither do you. My position has been - and will continue to be - that proponents of I.D. look at the theory of evolution and at the complex world around us and come to the conclusion that the theory is seriously flawed.

To lend some support to the notion (and that's all it is as far as I'm concerned; I.D. is not science), I ask you to read "Banned in biology" by Tom Bethell, writing in The Washington Times this morning, a portion of which reads:
Perhaps the most important reason [why design-based theories have gained so much traction in recent years] has been overlooked. The rise of computer science and information technology has caused many intelligent people not just to think about issues of design and the difficulties involved.

Software designers understand how precisely such information must be specified. There is no room for error. Yet each cell of the body contains a DNA chain of 3 billion nucleotides, encoded in such a way it specifies construction of all the proteins.

No one knows the source of this code or how it arose. It cannot have been by accident, but accident is the only method available to the evolutionists, who believe as a matter of dogma that early life arose from the random collision of atoms and molecules and nothing else. (

Dogma being the key word. The people who believe in evolution come across as the worst kind of fundamentalist. They will accept no lesser form of human being (that would be me) questioning the foundations of their universe (Galileo could relate). For anyone to seek answers to questions that the theory of evolution either doesn't address (the origins of life) or fails to explain (whence the dinosaurs? Whereunto the dinosaurs?), that person invites unmitigated wrath.

And then there's the arrogance. An email buddy once castigated my having the audacity to question his dogma and asked, "If a higher being designed us, why would he/she/it have created us with a completely useless appendix?" Or something to that effect. My reply to him was, "Just because we haven't determined its usefulness yet, doesn't mean it has no use. We just haven't figured it out yet, perhaps." He had been taught that the appendix was a useless body part, therefore it was so. I say it may very well be so, until someone comes along and proves that it is not so.

Anyway, a convenient method of emailing me has been set up over on the left of my weblog for those of you who intend to unleash your wrath after having read my evolution blasphemy. As a helpful hint, though, if you intend to write me and let me know - again - that I don't know what I'm talking about, that's the very point I'm trying to make. I - we - don't have the answers to life's most perplexing questions. You have your theory. I question its validity.

Kyoto Sham

It turns out I wasn't the only person who considered the Kyoto Protocol on global warming to be a complete farce. Of the 150 nations that signed the pie-in-the-sky greenhouse gas emmissions-control treaty, nearly all of them consider it to be frivolous and unworkable as well.
Ditch Kyoto
By Michael Fumento, The New York Post

Do you think manmade global warming threatens the planet? Or it's little more than an environmentalist sham?

Either way it's time to realize the celebrated Kyoto Protocol -- long touted by the greens as essential to preventing ecological disaster -- isn't just dying, it's decomposing.

Of the original 15 European Union ratifiers of Kyoto, at best four are on course to meet the treaty's target of an 8 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2008-2012 from the 1990 base-year level.

"The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem," British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted in September.

But this becomes less disappointing once you learn Kyoto's dirty little secret. Even supporters concede that if all countries complied the warming prevented by 2100 would be at most 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, except that 0.2 degrees is unmeasurable. Certainly it won't save a single polar bear. (link)
Confused? Shocked? Bewildered? Taken aback? Let me explain. This is a fad. Those who fear man-made global warming also feared acid rain. And denuding the rainforests. And ozone holes. Alar. Butter.

As with all the "crises" that developed after some expert (in the case of apples poisoning our children, it was Meryl Streep) came to us in a panic and told us that the world - in no uncertain terms - was about to end (and it hasn't, as of 5:05 this morning), all these fads come and go.

Look. Global warming will give way to global cooling. As a few brave climatologists have been trying to tell us, the earth's surface temperatures cycle through periods of heating and cooling - and probably have since the beginning of time.

Anyway, Kyoto is dead. Now it's on to another frightening end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it apocalypse. The latest - and my favorite - has to do with Big Mac-induced fat kids. This'll be fun to watch.