The Fundamental Idiocy of Intelligent Design

Let's for a moment forget the science.

Forget the fact that "intelligent design" (creationism masquerading in a lab coat) is laughed out of every peer-reviewed scientific publication, thereby resorting to spreading its message directly to the uneducated masses through shitty DVDs starring the Clear Eyes guy. At the end of the day, intelligent design relies not on any evidence, but a single infantile assertion made by simplistic minds:


"Life and all its diversity here on Earth is too complex to have originated and blossomed without a master plan and a guiding vision."

This is the brick wall you reach with a creationist whenever you start to whittle away his grossly misunderstood scientific facts that he thinks support the God-did-it supposition. "Life is just too complex, man! Some conscious force HAD to have made it happen. There's just no other explanation for something that complex!"



Really now? Is this an actual brick wall or is there more to this path? I say that like so many things with believers, the wall only exists because they think and act like it does. So fuck that, let's keep going! And it is when you continue to ride the train of logic towards its ultimate destination that you quickly begin to understand how hopelessly wrong the foundational viewpoint behind intelligent design is.


Alright, so let's say the creationists are right and life really IS so complex that the only explanation must be a conscious force. To so masterfully craft this complexity, this force would have to understand every working part of his creation: every single one of the estimated 100 million species on Earth, every little kicking bag of chemicals, every atom of every DNA strand that ever existed over the course of 1.5 billion years.

So this creator sounds like a pretty smart sonofabitch, doesn't he? He must have an extraordinarily powerful intellect. In fact, his mind sounds incredibly... complex.



The creationist folks love to whip out the "common sense" watchmaker analogy and ask "Have you ever seen anything with, say, the intricacy of a watch assemble itself on its own? Something that complex must've had an intelligent master designer!" Alrighty, so then let's pose another common sense question: "Have you ever known any intelligent designer (man or otherwise) purposefully design something more complex than himself?"

It doesn't happen. No intelligently designed creation has ever been made that surpasses the complexity of said creator. No watch, no computer, no space station even approaches the complexity of its designer.


So if God the Creator designed life, he himself is surely more complex than his creation. But then that means this Creator's more complex mind must have ALSO had a creator! Think about it... if the creationists are right and there's no other explanation for something as huge as life, then there is sure as hell no other explanation for something even grander, right? So then it means that a 2nd-tier deity (we'll call him SuperGod) devised and created the ultra-complex wonder that is God's mind which in turn created life on Earth.

But then... this 2nd-tier SuperGod must have had an EVEN MORE COMPLEX mind to have come up with all that shit!! And since both life and God's mind can ONLY be explained by a master creator, then surely the even-more complex SuperGod's mind can only be explained with a creator! So we have a 3rd-tier god -- MegaGod.


And then of course a 4th-tier one. UltraGod?


And a 5th.


And a 20th.


And so on and so on to infinity.


This train of logic runs forever with no ultimate destination. Just one Chinese box nested in another one over and over. Ironically, creationists will be the first to tell you that there is actually nothing more complex than that first creator (God forbid their imaginary friend ISN'T the greatest thing in the universe!)... and yet the logic of their primitive assertion regarding the purposeful design of complex systems clearly neccessitates this endless Matryoshka scenario of UltraGods and SuperGods.




Therefore...
"Intelligent design" is not an answer to anything. It is a self-neutralizing supposition too simple & stupid to realize its own simplistic stupidity.


Which can, through no great stretch, be said about God in general.

Religious folks and those who see the value of religion in general like to point out that we're all just looking for answers to life's great mysteries. The problem is that "God" is ultimately not any real answer to any question. "God" is simply the point at which an intellectually sluggish theist decided to stop asking further questions. God is the stop at which the believer got tired of riding the logic train and hopped off, convincing himself that there's nothing more to see beyond. He then builds a brick wall right there on the tracks and happily leans on it, confident that he's found the place at which the path ends.


And it is no coincidence that a lazy, simplistic solution in narrative storytelling is called "deus ex machina". The notion of God is the granddaddy of all deus ex machinas: a lazy solution to the narrative of life's story.

The Security of God and the Freedom of Godlessness.

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Here's Ben, one of our Founding Fathers eloquently conveying the "fuck-off-I'm-free" attitude still alive in today's patriotic America. In essence, it's a somewhat oversimplistic quote that

1) acknowledges the intrinsic inverse relationship between freedom and security: if you've stocked up on one -- chances are you're fresh out of the other, and
2) steps pretty firmly on the side of freedom.


Fuck yeah! We're Americans, after all. Freedom is in our very blood; stamped onto our currency, into our parks, onto our stadiums... hell, it was even temporarily on our French Fries (possibly explaining how it got into our bloodstream to begin with). But that's how it is! We're the Official Land of the Free; every third-grader knows this by heart.

So my question would be: why then are we such a nation of slaves? Why, specifically, do 4 out of 5 Americans willingly serve someone they call a Lord & Master?

Perhaps I've slept through the day when the existence of God was proven and declared fact, but I've always thought that believing in a God is something done voluntarily. I mean who outside of a mental asylum has ever said "You know, I really wish this God being didn't exist and I'm really looking for a loophole to disprove him, but the evidence is just too overwhelming -- I can't deny the existence of this Lord"? Even those who have had "genuine" religious visions are about the thickness of an Occam's Razor away from dismissing them as hallucinations, coincidences, or figments of the imagination... if they really want to. But, as the famous poster illustrates, most believers want to believe.



Other things don't quite work that way. You can try to deny the existence of gravity but you'll still be in bad shape if you hop out of a 20 story window... no matter how much you wish it wasn't so. Reality is described as that which doesn't go away after you stop believing in it. But as soon as you decide you'd rather not have him in your life, God vanishes like a Stalinist kommissar. In short, God is real only as long as you want him to be.

Which brings me back to the original question: So why do so many freedom-loving Americans want there to be a God? The God most believe in limits freedom. God comes with religion... religion comes with rules... orders, commandments, and forbidden pleasures. Don't cut your hair, don't eat pork, don't have gay sex, don't work on Saturday, etc. etc. True, there are relatively few believers who take these restrictions seriously... but if only it were as simple as mere adherence to a collection of silly fraternity-style rituals and archaic no-nos! The saddest part is more a matter of principle than practice: believers willingly acknowledge themselves as slaves.

I remember playing music at a large Texas family wedding a few years back. The ceremony was, for the most part, traditional... much like I'd seen in most movies or on TV. But in the middle of it, something happened that was unlike any romantic comedy I've seen. A prayer to God was said (asking him to bless the marriage) and everyone in attendance fell to their knees... heads bowed. I was one of the few left standing, looking over the collection of grown men and women in pressed suits and fine dresses -- 21st century adults; teachers, bank tellers, managers, etc. all these grown-ups witnessing the union of two other adults who found their mates and made the decision to join together for life -- down on the floor, requesting the good graces of their chosen lord and master... God.

Had this been anyone but God (or perhaps his official press secretary the Pope), such a scene would never come to pass. Not in America. Can you imagine any President or foreign leader being addressed by a crowd on their hands and knees? We'd say "fuck that"; even our own elected leaders who have very real chain of commmand superiority over us would not get such subjugation from the American people: they're our leaders and our bosses, not our masters. Indeed the whole foundation of America sprang from the rejection of monarchy and the embrace of the self worth of the individual. It could even be said that we are Americans because we never have to neither bow nor kneel to any authority. Yes, we take orders. Yes, we follow commands. But we're no one's humble servants. According to our ideal principles, there is no single individual (no matter how socially superior) who is fundamentally worth more than we are.

Except for God. The one exception. God says "jump", we say "how high?"... God says "fuck off", we say "how hard?" Why do we obey? I get it -- believers think God has almighty power and has given them everything they've ever had and could take it away just as easily so they better do what he says -- but why believe in this Lord fellow to begin with?

Let's say you're a person who loves freedom. You love being an individual, you consider yourself strong and wise, and you don't like the idea of someone else telling you how to live. What would you do the first time someone came up to you and said "Say, I have a message from this powerful guy much stronger and wiser than you are! He will take you under his wing and watch out for you and all he asks is that you submit to him your entire being -- follow his rules and every so often beg him on your hands and knees"? Chances are you'd yell something along the lines of "THIS IS SPARTA!" and kick said messenger/evangelist down the nearest sewer manhole.

4 out of 5 of us wouldn't. We freedom-lovers could just say "You know, I think I'll manage without this Master... you don't even have any proof that the guy exists and could actually deliver on anything he's promising!" and continue with our free lifestyles. But 4 out of 5 of us don't. 4 out of 5 of us willingly embrace the guy. Why? Why why why why why?

Because what he's promising is just too damn good!
-- Justice in an unjust world? Sign me up! Good to know that the crooks who slip through our flawed legal systems will get their comeuppance and the good-hearted folks will get rewarded!
-- Miraculous help in trying times? Wow! Cancer can happen to anyone and we all feel alone sometimes... it's awesome that somebody can listen and help out when you need it most.
-- Immortality? Eternity in paradise?? Fuck yeah!! I mean death is scary... I wanna make sure that I'm taken care of after I kick off.
These are no small benefits in a chaotic world and if the only payments are a lifetime of subservience and groveling on your hands and knees, so be it. That's my stand! Are you in good hands?

4 out of 5 of us trade security for freedom. 4 out of 5 of us disagree with Ben Franklin. 4 out of every 5 individuals living in the Land of the Free are all too happy to surrender freedom in exchange for the knowledge that everything is going to be okay.

Now one could make a much longer and detailed case about how it may be no coincidence that conservatives in America are always touting themselves as the champions of freedom while embracing not only the Lord thy God but the PATRIOT Act and pre-emptive warfare with paranoid soccer moms displaying "Freedom Isn't Free" stickers on their SUVs while patriotic Congressmen belt out the UNDER GOD part of the Pledge of Allegiance on the Capitol steps... but someone else can take that one. My point is a simpler one: Belief in God is perhaps the ultimate trade of freedom for security and there is much irony in the frequency with which just that is regularly done in a country that not only prides itself on freedom of religion, but freedom in general.

Speaking of which -- Tomorrow is the 4th of July and it looks like it's going to be a great weekend. On Saturday, Americans will hold parties and barbecues, shoot fireworks and roll parades -- singing songs and beating chests about the precious birthrighted freedom that our forefathers have fought and died to ensure. On Sunday morning, Americans will be back on their knees begging for their master to deliver them from the fights and deaths of their own daily free existence.

God Less America!

Combative Atheists, Coexisting, & other Bullshit.

Being as it's my first post here, introductions of some sort are probably in order.



Hi, my name is Dima, I'm 24 years old and I am what some call a "combative atheist"... or is it "militant atheist"? I've gotten both here and there and I don't really get what they're supposed to mean. Unlike militant animal rights activists, I've never thrown paint on anyone, never broken into a church to burn literature, and never so much as defaced anyone's religious bumper sticker. Like most average people, I'm a peaceful guy not looking for a fight or to get in anyone's face. If I wanted to do that, I'd be visiting churches or Christian sites and arguing with clergy or believers. I'd start conversations with "So, your religion is full of shit, huh?"... but frankly, I can think of more enjoyable ways to waste an afternoon.

And yet indeed, I do get embroiled in plenty of religious arguments. I don't seek them out. But every so often, someone brings up their God, their religion, or whatever other nonsense belief and injects it into the discussion. I rarely hesitate to reply with all sorts of approaches (depending on what was said): ranging from calmly pointing out factual errors to calling the believer a disgusting scumbag. It is for this, I believe, that they call me the "militant/combative atheist": Because I hear religious baloney and, more often than not, routinely denounce them with whatever approach I deem appropriate. The passion and ferocity can vary, but the firm rejection remains consistent.


So the statement that usually immediately follows my diagnosis as a militant is something along the lines of "Why can't you simply believe what you believe and let others be, like so many moderate Christians, Jews, Buddhists? Why, you combative atheists are just as bad as the Bible beating nuts you are up against! Coexist!"






Here's the problem: most rational, progressive people don't seem to mind that most religions of the world offer blatantly incompatible explanations for eternal life, truth, God, etc. ...and therefore implicitly call the others full of shit. I mean if a Christian believes that Jesus is the one and only way to heaven, then clearly anybody who think it's actually Muhammed is wrong. Or if keeping Kosher is so important to get in God's good graces, then anyone who ignores it is essentially a fool. These are the inevitable corollaries that arise any time you make an affirmative statement of fact: If you have the truth, then anyone who says different is full of it. But you're perceived in a good light just as long as you focus on speaking about the truth of your beliefs instead of the fallacy of others'.

My old college had something called the The ALANA Center. ALANA stood for "African American, Latino, Asian American, Native American" and the center was basically a resource to enhance the campus experience of the students with these racial backgrounds. That worked. But how do you think it would sound if the center was called something like "Non-White" or "Everyone But Caucasians"? After all, that's essentially what it was. But a name like that would piss everybody off, so once again, they focus on the affirmative rather than the negative and make the name an awkwardly long list of those they include rather than the much simpler "list" of groups they exclude (us pasty crackas.)

And so are the world's religions: living side by side, reading their respective texts, going to their respective churches, all the while knowing themselves to be right and everybody else wrong, yet somehow coexisting in harmony*. It's a blissful interfaith paradise... and thennnnnn there's us atheists.

Ah, atheists. Caught between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, we're just like any other religion: treating other religions as misguided, ever so confident that they don't have the right answer about the ultimate truth in the universe.
On the other hand... well, we're not a religion. No rules, no doctrine, no dogma, no One Truth to assert. No affirmation of fact. Just a rejection of theirs. So how exactly does an atheist avoid being perceived as a crabby hater out to voice nothing but negative rejection?

He doesn't.




It basically comes with the territory. I mean just look at the word itself: You can't spell "atheist" without "theist"... and you can't have atheists without theists. There can be no rejection of the existence of God without someone to have first proposed him.

Not our fault, really. You theists showed up first with that half-baked God idea you yanked out of your butt and have never been able to let go since. We were all living in pure blissful agnosticism, worrying not about any cosmic creator or judge who helps us and smites our enemies. But the first theist had the bright idea that it must be so... and the first person to tell him he was full of crap became the first atheist. And so the line was drawn and the course was set. Ever since, those who peddled the idea of God were theists, and those who refused to swallow became atheists. Perhaps someday in the future when we as a species evolve past the idea of God, theists and atheists will be forgotten by history and we'll return to the pure agnosticism we came from, pursuing more worthwhile answers to the mysteries of the universe. (At the heart of the matter, this is really the ultimate goal of any so-called "evangelical atheist": to work themselves out of existence.)


In the meantime, how can any real atheist be anything but combative? By definition, rejecting theist claims is what we're about. I haven't yet found a way to politely tell someone that I think their deeply-held spiritual beliefs are baseless fairy tales. If I had my own idea about The Ultimate Truth of The Universe, maybe I'd focus on that instead and be viewed more favorably by others. But I guess until then, I'm stuck wearing the "combative/militant" label and I'm trying to make my peace with it. I guess it helps to know that in truth, we're all combative simply because we all fiercely believe someone else to be wrong. The more religions stress the truth of their perspective, the more they imply the fallacy of those who differ.

So can we all truly coexist? Only as long as everyone is okay with being told implicitly and explicitly that our affirmations of truth are fantasies. However, I doubt this is the kind of "mutual respect" the Coexist folks have in mind. What they're looking for is something that can never be: A world in which everyone is right. And until that impossible world appears, they'll settle for a world in which everyone pretends that nobody is wrong. And as an atheist, you can imagine that I'm hardly in the mood to play along with more make-believe. So call me combative -- I'm ready for a new kind of coexistence.

P.S.: Today my Darwin fish emblem was ripped off my car while parked at the mall. Yes, apparently some Christian just couldn't live with the fact that there was a guy driving around poking fun at his religion. This Christian would rather break the Commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" than allow someone to freely contradict his beliefs. And they call me combative.

* that's a pretty big fucking asterisk