Scientific Standup Comedy for Beginners

Mehran Banaei

One strategy employed by militant materialist scientists to debunk the notion of the First Cause is to establish flaws in the creation and operation of the universe. The perceived flaws from “natural catastrophes” to “imperfection”, “oddities” and “redundant complexity” in various organisms are loudly broadcasted supposedly to make a point, namely that an Intelligent Designer cannot come up with suboptimal design. Stephen Jay Gould was the one who, for instance, argued that the human chin serves no purpose at all; it is a superfluous byproduct of the evolutionary process. He further argued that a panda’s tiny thumb is totally redundant having no purpose at all.

Richard Dawkins and his team butchered a poor giraffe in front of the camera to demonstrate a similar point, the point being that the pathway of laryngeal nerve of giraffe is “completely illogical”:

It is of course illogical from an atheist subjective point of view, not from a general overall point of view of objective science. Dawkins does not seem to have learned a lesson from the “junk DNA” experience. Some evolutionary geneticists made similar accusation against certain human DNA, calling them “junk DNA” and thinking that they serve no purpose. Yet, further research confirmed in no time that far from being useless about 98 per cent of human DNA that does not encode instructions for making proteins plays a significant role in controlling cell development. A fallible being should never assume that he knows the totality of reality or that his opinion is absolute.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson confuses a science lecture with standup comedy, when he gives examples of “Stupid Design” in the universe. This learned man argues that the idea of eating, drinking, talking and breathing through one outlet is an example of “Stupid Design”. He further belittles human anatomy by questioning how our sexual organ could be concurrently used as the means to discharge bodily waste. To him “what’s between our legs is an entertainment complex built in the middle of a sewage system”, a premise provided to demonstrate that a Divine Planner cannot be responsible for such a stupidity.

According to Tyson,  it seems that iPhone and Swiss Army knife are examples of “Stupid Design” for being multifunctional. This smart scientist fails to notice the obvious, that multitasking is a paragon of intelligent design. Can you imagine a face or a body with numerous holes for each separate function? Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson may prefer to have his genitals uniquely located on his forehead, but on what ground does he think that this is a better design than the existing one? What is the criterion? For many critics talking is cheap; Mr. DeGrasse Tyson should perhaps put his money where his mouth is. Being the smart scientist he is, he should go to the drawing board and give us a better design of how human anatomy ought to function. He further has to prove that his construct is far better than nature’s design.

These audacious materialists lack basic training in logic. They are so eager to discredit God that they fail to reflect for a minute on what they are actually saying. The atheists attempt to convince us that everything in the universe including ourselves is terribly designed. If that is so, then how can we trust judgment made by this defective product. That is to say, if Man is badly designed, could this inadequacy not include his brain? Therefore, his cognitive functioning, i.e. perception of intelligent or stupid design is likely to be faulty.

Furthermore, even a well-established “sub-optimal” design does not refute or diminish the design argument. A bad design, relatively speaking, may be a poor functioning and inefficient apparatus, but nonetheless it is still designed. Consider the following example: The vehicle below is certainly a substandard means of transportation in automobile industry, perhaps the worst possible design that one can think of for a car. It may not at all be a marketable idea. Nevertheless, it is certainly designed by a designer who in fact appears in the picture. The vehicle is not a product of mindless random mutation.

new car

In essence one can argue that the designer of this vehicle is a genius using the best of what is available to him to create a fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicle which elegantly serves his purpose. His design was not intended to put Mercedes out of business or to qualify for Formula One races.

The arguments present by materialists are not based on science, but on opinion. I have been under the impression that the job of a scientist is to avoid giving subjective opinion, but present facts. Further, the opinion given in cited cases is a very bad one. For example, chin is the external part of the human lower jaw. No scientist would argue that jaws serve no purpose. Even as an external part, jaws serve an important function. It is a facial feature and plays an important role in distinction of one individual apart from others.

Materialist scientists arrogantly think that they know the totality of reality and thus pass judgement on what is stupid or intelligent design. Regardless of what or who really created this universe, whether it was Juju at the bottom of the sea, Zeus, Krishna, Ganesh, Natural Selection or the God of Abraham, one thing that we can tell for sure is that this Entity has infinite wisdom and knows His job. There must be a reason for the way things are. Have we not seen enough cases? For example, Gould’s myopic view on panda’s thumbs was later on totally dismissed by other scientists who carefully studied panda’s behaviour in the wild. They discovered that panda’s thumb gives a great dexterity to panda to handle bamboo branches (Hideki Endo, et al., “Role of the giant panda’s pseudo-thumb,” Nature, Vol: 347: pp. 309-310, January 28, 1999).

As it happens millions of dollars are spent on research in biomimicry to discover and implement nature’s genius in order to advance human efficiency, something that the likes of Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson are either blind to see or dishonest to acknowledge.

Foolishness is indeed laughable particularly when it is displayed by the members of “intellectual elite”.


Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s