'Design' is not all that intelligent

Tom Zwemer's Intelligent Design letter of Feb. 20 ("How can you reject Intelligent Design?") makes the common uneducated assumption that hereditary modification occurs through trial and error. It does not.


Evolution is driven by successful reproduction. There is no need for a "designer." He talks of the human eye. There is a clear transitional path from rudimentary light-sensitive spots on worms all the way to the current iteration of the eye.

He talks of "testability." Here's a test of Intelligent Design. If the presumed benevolent, omniscient "designer" is intelligent, then his designs should be superior. The "design" of the human back and foot look exactly as though they evolved from earlier mammals as supported by the fossil record. The back and foot are, on the other hand, horrendously inefficient and troublesome structures if the "intelligent designer" made them so.

So we either have a natural, easy-to-follow evolutionary process, or a cruel, incompetent "designer."

Johnnie Poole




Sun, 12/17/2017 - 19:29

‘I bring you good tidings’

Sun, 12/17/2017 - 19:29

Olmstead needs team