The Centre for Unintelligent Design, a pro-science, anti-creationist website, has received a letter from the esteemed Dr. Steve Fuller, one of the witnesses for the ID side during the Dover trial. Responding to the argument that examples of unintelligent design support evolution but not special creation, Fuller ducks into the punch:
From: Steve Fuller
Sent: Sep 18, 2011
To: Keith Gilmour
Thanks for this. You might perhaps make more headway with ID people if you understood the position better. The problem
of apparent ‘unintelligent design’ in nature is one that people with ID sympathies have long tackled. Simply look up the
literature on ‘theodicy’.
But as Keith Gilmour points out, theodicy is a purely religious idea. There isn’t a lick of science in it, thus proving the point that ID is nothing more than a religious belief masquerading as science. Rick Pearcey, husband of IDer and young earth creationist Nancy Pearcey, makes an equally silly response on their website.
Apparently, some 88 seconds ago, or several thousands of seconds ago, or millions or billions of seconds ago, the Centre for Unintelligent Design did not exist. And then, on the 89th second (or other such temporal numerical value), some aspect of time, space, and matter burped, and Lo & Behold, into being came the Centre for Unintelligent Design.
This contingent universe being what it is (or is not), you had better read all about this newish (or is it oldish, or do the words “new” or “old” — without or without “ish” — have meaning in a contingent universe?) website as soon as possible.With each click of the tick-tock the Centre for Unintelligent Design may well uncreate itself back into the meaningless self-caused (or non-self-caused) nonexistence from which it emerged, lived, breathed, and for a while expressed its arbitrary being in a universe that couldn’t care less.
One last thing: Did the website for The Centre of Unintelligent Design have a website designer? Just wondering.
Get it? It’s so simple. The website had a designer and therefore the universe must have one. Because it’s so incredibly complex. But the designer must be at least equally complex, right? So why doesn’t the designer require a designer? Because they said so, of course. They have gone round the world many times trying to find the beginning of the equator and, upon tiring of the journey, planted a flag and declared the question answered. But declaring it answered is not the same thing as actually answering it.
Fuller, you may recall, is the philosopher of science who testified at the Dover trial for the defendants. His position, which he actually delivered with a straight face, was that while it didn’t appear that intelligent design was really valid, the only way it could ever be shown to be valid was if there were a group of young devotees to do the research and try to flesh it out — and the only way to do that, he argued, was to teach it in schools. He actually referred to it as a sort of affirmative action program for fringe ideas in science.