Wow. Has it been three weeks since my last update? I guess I'll have to do what one of my heroes, Bob Mould, does and do a blog post each morning after I get up but before I do anything else. But that would still leave me with the most boring blog in the world, because it seems that exciting things only happen in my life about once every three months or so. Posts more often would just be "treading water" posts, unless I went on rants about things that are bugging me. I guess that would be okay...at least rants tend to be mildly entertaining.
So what would I rant about? Oh, probably stuff like intelligent design "theory." All I can say is, if the universe is intelligently designed, then the designer has a LOT to answer for, like:
Nipples for men
Multiple variations of just about every species of animal or plant. I mean, look at how many types of birds there are! If an intelligent designer were at work, wouldn't he/she/it/they make one REALLY GOOD BIRD and leave it at that? Or at most a few shapes and sizes. But 40-some-odd different types of finches? Come on!
Human spinal column. Look at how many chiropractors there are. 'nuff said.
Hate/greed/selfishness. I guess the prevailing opinion is that the ID (intelligent designer) originally wrote the perfect program for human peace, love and tolerance, and we (humankind) came up with all the "bugs" in the system. Well, shouldn't mister/missus fancypants IDer have created software for the monkey that the monkey couldn't screw up?
Oh, also I finally finished a story I've been working on for a while, but it's approximately 26,000 words long, even after extensive editing. Most print publishers max out at 15,000 words or less. So I'll probably have to send it to e-publishers of science fiction stories, or to magazines that publish serials. Lisa thinks the story pretty good. But she's biased, so we'll see if people who would actually have to pay money for it also think so.
8 comments:
Hey, don't knock "intelligent" design on the "one really good one" reasoning! That's like saying a songwriter should be content with one really good song. Surely there must be, say, 1000 better arguments against I.D.
I would modify the "nipples on men" argument to "uselessness (foodwise) of nipples on men". Maybe you guys couldn't give birth for structural reasons, but there's no real reason you shouldn't be able to pitch in to feed the kids afterwards!
I must echo Tavia's response on the "one good one" idea. That's the kind of arguement that could also be used in saying that there should only be one set of belief's,one kind of race,one kind of sexuality,etc. It's certainly George Bush's favorite way of dealing with things,(see most of his foreign policy). Variety seems to be more a proof of intelligence.
Also,comments on nipples for men get too close to a Seinfeld routine,("what's the deal with nipples on men ?").
Heh heh. That's the problem with rants -- they tend not to be very well constructed. It's nice to see folks are still regularly visiting the Frinkenstein blog, though.
I suppose a designer who designed one REALLY cool bird, such as an osprey, couldn't help but think, "Wow, that osprey is really cool! I think I'll riff on that a little bit and make an eagle and a hawk. Then I can get really out there and make a penguin and an auk!" Still, 40+ species of finch? Using the "song writing" analogy, the designer then just becomes like Angus Young, re-writing the same tune over and over with only slight variations. Granted, it's a really good song, but I hope you're not saying that Angus Young is like God! (Now, Pete Townsend, perhaps.)
Also, one should not confuse physical systems with social ones. Thus, I'm not suggesting that the "one REALLY good one" approach means that there should be only one type of sexuality, one set of beliefs, etc. Only that a designer might craft a creature and tweak it until it was just right, then say "Well, I can't improve on that anymore. Time to move on to something else." Of course, Tavia is right, there are many better arguments against the intelligent design approach.
And finally, "nipples for men" was actually echoing "Time Bandits" from 1982. I guess that's just one REALLY good example of a nonsensical human physical quirk!
Okay, I will admit that Sara Ivanhoe , the woman featured in several of Lisa's yoga DVDs, is a good argument in FAVOR of intelligent design!
Clearly, Sara's design is faulty. That shelf was not meant to carry so many books.
And when she says "This pose is good for the digestion," what she means is that it will make you poot.
Hey, I *appreciate* nipples on men; I think they're cute! Though Liz is right about their food-giving value, they have other, more pleasant, uses. But you're right about Angus Young. And by the way, hawks eat other birds, so our "designer" might have just wanted to give them an interesting diet!
I think that "the designer" came up with one REALLY good finch; however, a couple of thousand years of exolution and adaptation of different environments makes 40 variations.
Post a Comment