A response to Simon’s critique of Intelligent Design
A guest post by Cardinal Spin
I was pleased to write my debut post for Chrisendom a while back (on ‘Christian counselling’), but I felt the urge to write another in light of this drivel Chris’ most recent guest blogger, Simon Hardwick, has written about Intelligent Design. Gladly, Chris has cautiously given me permission to respond again, even though he too takes a similar line to Simon on the whole ID issue - so a round of applause for Chris’ willingness to promote open dialogue is in order. What a guy.
However, Simon, you have things totally wrong, you git. Your birthday it may be, but correction is my gift to you. In the following I want to present a few propositions for you consideration.
First, if I understand you correctly, you argue that design can only be inferred from the world around us, sometimes against the evidence, by faith; it is not something objective and open to all, nor is it a scientific statement. You boldly maintain that design is not a scientific evaluation (or, using Kantian categories, a pure reason appraisal) but rather something that involves broader metaphysical assessment (Kant’s practical reason) in light of faith. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is what you are claiming, isn’t it?
Now, the first link in my argument is to note the following: Beauty is related to design.
Let me explain. I do not applaud the beauty of chaos, that is clear, but were I to look at the curves on a fine looking nun, or the bosoms of the fine ladies on Baywatch, applaud (and wolf whistle) I do. Enthusiastically. I perceive beauty in the design.
What you are trying to tell me, by deduction, is thus the following: When you look at the beauty of your own wife, this is not something, like design, that can be appreciated by the objective state of affairs, it is rather only seen by faith. In other words, the beauty of your wife is very definitely only in the eyes of the beholder. But how does your wife feel about that?
‘Honey, do I look nice in this dress?’What is worse is what happens when we stretch this line of reasoning. Basically, you’re saying that my mum looks like a piece of minced-meat, that Chris’ wife only evidences design against the evidence, and that the mums and wives of all reading this are as ugly as hell!
‘Well darling, though against the evidence, and through my eyes of believing faith, unobjectively yes ...’
Explain yourself, man, and stop your filthy nonsense gabbling before I come and show you what your face looks like after it has been undesigned by my cricket bat.
Labels: Cardinal Spin