Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Divine Comedy

Things used to be so simple. On the one hand there were the Darwinists. They claim that everything evolved from some primeval muck and that there is no scientific basis for the existence of God. Figuring out where the original muck came from is a bit tricky, but for the rest of it, our current state of affairs just developed through a lot of natural interactions. On the other hand (surely the Right Hand), there were the Biblical Creationists. They claim that nothing is more than about 10,000 years old, the whole universe was actually created in 6 days, and God can be thanked or blamed for just about everything. Figuring out where the dinosaur bones came from is a bit tricky, but for the rest of it, our current state of affairs is the result of a Divine Design. There you have it. If there is a God, he either has better things to do or He is still tinkering around despite an exhausting first week. The ‘nothing to do with me God’ let Mr Darwin into the Middle School Biology class in American schools. The ‘I created all of this stuff and have a right to manage it God’ let King James into the sophomore year Comparative Religion class in American universities. Simple.

As with every other human endeavour, if you want make the simple incredibly complex, contentious, antagonistic, expensive, and satisfying to nobody, hire a lawyer. That is exactly what is happening in states from Wisconsin to Pennsylvania to Montana across America. Thanks to the Intelligent Design crowd, hundreds of educational authorities are faced with the challenge of putting King James into Mrs. Callaghan’s Middle School Biology teaching plan and Mr Darwin into Professor Medvedev’s Comparative Religion syllabus. Looks like Mrs Callaghan and Professor Medvedev can look forward to taking some night classes.

If you ask an evolutionist what God looks like, they’ll answer ‘I haven’t got a clue. If he exists, he always keeps his back turned to me. I wouldn’t recognise him in a police line-up’. If you ask a Biblical Creationist what God looks like, they’ll answer ‘He’s about 6 foot three, wears size 44 medium flowing robes, has a long white beard and doesn’t need glasses. Unless you are talking about God the Son, who looks younger and wears a size 40 tall flowing robe, or the Holy Spirit who has white feathers instead of a robe’. Simple.

Here is where it gets very confusing. If you ask an Intelligent Designist what God looks like, they’ll answer ‘He’s a nerdy looking guy who’s been sitting at a drafting table in the Celestial R&D department, literally forever. He wears a cardigan sweater with leather elbow patches and his hands are stained from the ink on the blue prints. Oh, and he smokes a pipe’. This could be a real boost for the science textbook printers and stained glass window designers – jobs that have not recently been on the cutting edge of excitement.

The Intelligent Designists may be on to a winning strategy here; get ‘em while they are young. If they can get God into Biology, the 10 Commandments works in Math and brimstone is a natural for Chemistry. The poor Evolutionists are stuck with trying to interest hung-over, sex-obsessed university students and semi-literate student athletes in the intellectual strength of their theorem.

Surely those who believe in the Mildly Interested creed deserve a hearing in this controversy. They believe that if there is a God, he or she might have kick started everything but now spends His or Her time auditioning choirs in some kind of Heavenly American Pop Idol series. If there isn’t a God, then all of this lunacy is actually our own fault. With a big enough retainer, most lawyers will argue either side of the case.

4 Comments:

Blogger Lilly said...

with or without a God, our lunacy is our own fault. free will. must we put the blame on something or someone? aren't we the masters of our own destiny? religion is also man's fault. dogma segregates, whereas universalism integrates.

12:47 PM  
Blogger PA said...

A very well written, well-thought out entry.

I do think you have over-simplified the issue. The issue is balance. Those arguing for an intelligent design model to be taught merely want both sides taught in public schools... as reflective of Judeo-Christian beginnings of the US and in denial of the artificial absolute seperation of church and state. (Look it up, the original authors never desired a total seperation, what has been attributed to T. Jefferson he never said in public but used that term only in a private letter TO A PASTOR.)
The whole argument is therefore not "one or the other" but of a more balanced approach. Surely there is ample evidence for biblical creationism scientifically just like there is a distinct inability to prove any sort of macroevolution has ever occured. For over 100 years dawninistss have tried to find something that shows macroevolution but come up empty with some notable gaffs!

8:46 AM  
Blogger Candace said...

Brilliant post, my friend.

9:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You wrote:
"....Evolutionists are stuck with trying to interest hung-over, sex-obsessed university students and semi-literate student athletes in the intellectual strength of their theorem.."

Thanks for the morning chuckle....

CoolAqua
http://www.coolaqua.blogs.com

11:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Mandatory
Miscellanea

Humor Blog Top Sites