Tuesday, March 27, 2007


Annals of Design

Over at Uncommon Descent, DaveScot has looked carefully at the evidence and come to the conclusion that experimental germ free laboratory animals "could not have evolved in the natural world without exposure to bacteria but they could have been designed for GF [germ free, RSR] life."

If we read him correctly, and in truth we can hardly believe what we're reading, DaveScot is saying that because germ free animals live on a average twice as long in highly specialized laboratory environments as their germ infested relatives, all animals must have been designed that way. He leaves unexplained why the designer would have designed animals for a world that doesn't exist.

It seems to us a bit like creating birds to live on a planet with no atmosphere or fish for a waterless planet. Did DaveScot's creator design germs first and then animals optimized for a germ-free enviornment, or did he create the animals first and then introduce germs as an afterthought?

Before you laugh, you should be aware that the man who's been given the keys to William Dembski's blog bases his conclusion on a wealth of "experience with rabbits."

You know, the animal that has to eat its own feces because of the bassackwards "design" of it gut.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?