DEFENDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Hello Again:

Richard Dawkins book called, The Greatest Show On Earth, was written to validate the principles of evolution and to show that the Biblical account of creation in a period of 6 days is mythical in nature.

While the book validates both of the above propositions, he goes on to say that Intelligent Design is false and he gives numerous examples to show that the design of our bodies in particular could be said to be more in keeping with unintelligent design.   I beg to differ.

He uses the anatomy of the male sexual reproductive system as one salient point to prove such unintelligent design.   If the biblical story of creation was correct and each species was created separately, then the vas deferens leading from each testicle to the prostate gland, which is necessary to allow the man to impregnate a woman, should be approx. 4 inches long.   

Instead the vas deferens goes up about 8 inches from each testicle, loops over the tube carrying urine from the kidney down to the bladder and then goes back down another approx. 8 inches where it attaches to the prostate gland.   Richard Dawkins represents this as one of millions of examples of unintelligent design in the human as well as other living bodies also.

I submit that further analysis is necessary.   At one time long ago, a man's testicles were inside the body and the vas deferens ran about 16 inches down from the testicles to the prostate gland.   At that time, the vas deferens ran down the outside of the tube carrying urine to the bladder.   

In the current configuration, the testicle descended down on the inside of the urinary tube so that there was about 8 inches from the testicle to the urinary tube and then another 8 inches back down to the prostate gland.

If the testicles went down on the outside of the urinary tube the necessary tubing to attach it to the prostate gland would be about 4 inches and the remaining 12 inches of the tube would be folded over each other and crimped up at the lowest part of the abdomen.   In all probability, this option would prevent the sperm from reaching the prostate gland and the male would be rendered infertile.

What is the point of being aesthetically efficient in design if the outcome leads to extermination of the species?   Intelligent Design in this case means to keep in place the potential for the successful act of procreation.   This example proves that the belief in Intelligent Design is alive and well; --- no pun intended.
__________________________________

I am currently reading a short book called simply, --- The Brain.   It is almost incredible to believe how complicated it is.  According to Richard Dawkins, if it was not for the dog eat dog world, evolutionary principles would never have brought intelligent entities such as the human species into existence. 

I always felt confused when I saw a lion killing another animal but now I know that our brains would never have come into existence unless nature itself forced such changes to occur.

In the case of the human eye, evolutionary processes could only bring into existence an eye with various levels of flaws.  The most obvious one being that the retina of the human eye is facing backward.  

Then, as Richard Dawkins quaintly points out, a structure inside the brain which he refers to as a "photo shop", cleans up all of the flaws and gives us a perfectly working eye.   At least for those of us whose genetic material was good enough to do so.

How about all of the flaws that the "clutch pedal" limitations would bring into existence for the brain itself.   After all, there is no superseding structure to provide a "photo shop" for the correction of any flaws within the evolutionary building of the human brain. 

The following ideas are only conjecture on my part, but it seems to me that the so-called flaws that are brought about by the "clutch pedal" limitations of evolutionary principles turn out to be of paramount importance in bringing into existence billions of cells that make up the human brain.  Under those terms of reference it would be sheer folly to continue to believe in accidental design rather than Intelligent Design by a Creator.