Intelligent Design? Not! - Letters To The Editor - Letter to the Editor

Comment on the article by Bruce and Frances Martin on Intelligent Design (November/December 2003): This admirable article constitutes a most strong argument against Intelligent Design (i.e., creationism). I have paid attention particularly to the following passage: "There are many features of human anatomy we might wish were better designed.... The openings of our tubes for breathing and swallowing are so close that we often choke."

The authors have, though, overlooked a more cumbersome design--the lungs. The input and exhaust are through the same tube and opening in a back-and-forth movement of the gases. Would any automobile designer put the exhaust pipe through the carburetor? Why don't we breathe out through an opening, for example, in the chest with a one-way air flow? The driving motor could still be the "bellows" of the lungs. Fortunately our digestive track docs not turn back to the mouth (except when vomiting) for expelling the "spent nourishment"!

Lassi Hyvarinen

Divonne-les-Bains, France

I read with interest the recent article "Neither Intelligent nor Designed."

When we look at nature and how cruel it presently is, and the real evidence from the past, we pretty much have to accept the notion that if there was a designer, he was a sadistic experimenter that failed 99 percent of the time, not the all-knowing and loving God that we hear of in Sunday School.

I would like to add one more thought, or punch line was I once heard it: When looking at human anatomy, would an intelligent engineer create a situation where a sewer line runs right through the middle of a recreation area?

Cliff Johnson

Chico, California

The article by Bruce and Frances Martin is a cogent refutation of Intelligent Design that should be convincing to those who are receptive to scientific reason. For others, however, there is a different argument that might be more persuasive, since it comes from the Bible. The second chapter of Genesis describes how God "formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air" trying to find a helper suitable ("meet" in the King James translation) for Adam. None proved suitable until God came up with Eve. This suggests that creation was not by intelligent design, but by trial and error, or perhaps by random mutation and natural selection.

C. Leon Harris

Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences

State University of New York at

Plattsburgh

I am a second-year biology student at Red Deer College in Alberta and a new subscriber to your publication. I thoroughly enjoy the ongoing articles on the Intelligent Design debate.

During a debate over evolution and creationism in a university biology class my first year I chose to "strongly agree" with the theory of evolution. Our arguments were based on the fact that science has an advantage over religion in that it tries to remain impartial. Even though in practice impartiality is virtually impossible to maintain, I feel that the attempt makes any arguments more plausible. The fact that science works to disprove itself, rather than to follow what it wants to be true also, in my eyes, gives it credibility.

During the debate I also came to realize that to hold so strongly to my scientific beliefs requires its own kind of "faith." Many of the arguments I have are based primarily on scientific theory, rather than scientific fact. I am however prepared to alter my views as our scientific understanding expands and newer or revised theories are developed. This pliability and the search for better explanations are to a large degree what I believe give my argument more credibility.

Even in the academic setting with no given right or wrong opinion, the tension was still apparent. After the class I commented to one of the "strongly disagree" group members that I respected their conviction and ability to take a stand. Although they were not rude, their response was not one that made me feel like an equal; rather the condescending tone merely made it evident that this debate is still a topic that gets emotions flying and is likely to remain controversial.

Bryce Williams

Red Deer College

Red Deer, Alberta

Canada

COPYRIGHT 2004 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group