Designer?

Monday October 17, 2005 - 3:40PM EDT

Today I read about some biology professor at Lehigh University who is arguing for intelligent design. Besides the fact that Lehigh has distanced itself from this guy by saying its staff supports evolution unequivocaly this man should be slapped in the face. He has tenure so he can't lose his job unfortunately. The article quotes this person as saying blood clotting is poorly explained by evolution but well explained by design. I would love to hear the rest of that quote and have him explain what exactly "well explained by design" entails. Has this guy lost his marbles. Has he succumbed under the daunting task that is scientific discovery and given up. Given up and become satisfied with meaningless mystical reasoning. He has lost heart, given up, closed his eyes, something. I'd like to see how far he gets in his biology while subscribing to the belief of design. The belief that something is a certain way because some thing wanted it to be. I just want to see this evidence for design and blood clotting. Maybe his evidence is somthing like, blood clotting is clearly evidence of design because it helps us not to die when we get cut. Probably not but whatever "evidence" this guy has is probably as good as that last setence.

So I am doing a little research. Not much, but some on this Lehigh quack. Behe is his name. I find some excerpts of his book and read through them. So I come across these two words and it all makes sense. I was right on when I said this fucker is giving up.

Irreducible complexity

That is the crux of his whole designer spiel. That fucker just gave the fuck up. He saw all these issues and problems with a theory and said you can't figure it out lets attribute it to a designer. Holy freaking shit dude. I'm no PhD but got damn man. Got damn. So this clown is going to attribute blood clotting to design and not even try to figure out what is going on. What if inside that mystery of blood clotting is valuable keys to disease. We will never find them if we just give up. This biologist has posed a whole bunch of interesting questions about blood clotting and simply left them unpursued. He has stopped practicing science. These fools. This shit makes me so angry. Where they see rigidity full of cracks I see flexibility with unlimited wrinkles that must be straightened. It is like they are saying science has discovered everything and that is it. How can you not see that problem with that type of thinking? By a freaking biologist no less. But this a problem within the scientific community maybe? An arrogance that comes with study I guess. When that arrogance results in such poor judgment like this it is particularly disheartning. It is that philosophical search for ultamite causality that permeates everything. Prime example of it. I guess some see science as this limited body of knowledge that has limits to what it can explain. Is this what some that pursue science think? That they are to study a static body of knowledge? Stop being a loser and playing loserball. There is no irreducible complexity when you study science. There is only your piddly ass crying like a baby when you can't figure something out. Fuck, I hate to see what the world would be like today if Edison, Einstein, Newton, Fermi, etc. had succumbed to irreducible comlexity. Aside from all this. Science never tackles the question of ultimate causality anyway. It is too busy with other things to worry about that. That is what it comes down to. Ultimate causality.

Let's take this in a different dirctions. I read this loser's paper. I don't feel bad calling a PhD a loser especially after reading some of this clown's reasoning. His paper poses some great questions and it is enjoyably critical. That is the only worthwhile thing about it. This loser then proceeds to take a shit on all the good stuff he states with his irreducible complexity arguement and piss poor misleading anologies. He even has the nerve to make analogies to the discoveries of the past debunking previously held beliefs to intelligent desing doing the same to evolution. With his irreducible complexity arguement he is also neglecting the fact that evolution has been updated since its first statement by Darwin. DNA was not originally recognized as an intergral part of evolution as it is today. I bet if this weak clown Behe has been around then he would have presented the same irreducible complexity arguement and then had to eat crow when they discovered what DNA does. It will happen to this loser. Maybe not in his lifetime but eventually through continued study we will answer all his questions, that somehow lead him to design, and create even more questions from the ones we answered. The funniest part about the paper is that is starts our so brillantly in its first section. Then proceeds to ignore everything it stated in the first section. He also off handedly states something about the maximum science allows. It is easy to see where this clown is going to go and what he is going to think with candy-boy thinking like that.

The fact that all his arguements hinge upon this irreducibly complex statement is most disturbing. That is a whole world of inspection in itself and he is using it as some kind of scientific reasoning. His definition of irreducibly complex is woefully in inadaquate. It is based on "parts". Parts which he never attempts to define. Parts as any person knows can be such a subjective description. Parts really doesn't mean much. A part can be very small or a complex device. Any mechanic ordering things for cars knows that. For this irreducible complexity thing to work you have to know every part. No matter how small or large. You can say something was designed but show me the fucking blueprints. I can almost believe that things were designed. There is no saying that it is impossible that some race of aliens didn't design us. But what happens when people think like that is that it becomes an ending point. It is creator and thats it. They don't go on to ask about that "creator" they stop asking questions. We stagnate. I think about AI. What if we design AI so advanced but then die off ourselves and don't leave them with any memory of us creating them. Will they go through the same thing we are? But then again why would we remove the information that they were created by us. That is just a fun thought don't get any inferences from it. That is the main problem with this creationist bullplop. It stops everything, no one goes beyond. If this loser is so sure of design why is he stopping with that. Go an search for proof, for more. Do you not have any more questions after you declared a designer? Stop playing loserball.