Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Intelligent (but not perfect) design

Fig. 1, Not that intelligently designed

The credibility of a belief, be it theological or otherwise, is often made or broken by its stance on evolution and creationism. There is an enormous amount of pressure on deities to take credit for designing species past and present, and many find the prospect of glory too much to resist. Just last week, Tom Cruise buckled and admitted to creating a species of nematodes in his image.

Fig. 2, Scientists believe that egg thing next to the worm
is probably Katie Holmes

The source of this pressure is twofold: first, it lends credence to religious dogma that may not have been written contemporaneously. Second, it helps to demonstrate the omnipotence of the deity in question.

But Frodology is not bound by Christian dogma, and Frodo can prove His omnipotence in other ways, such as through His mastery of Rock Band.

The Faith’s ethos is best summed up by the views of our resident scienceism expert, Frodologist Prof. J. Toss, who has read an entire book on the subject. “At first glance, the creatures of the planet do seem intelligently designed. The inclusion of breathing and sight in many organisms was really quite clever. Making reproduction fun was certainly a coup, and the inclusion of the appendix in our own species demonstrates a certain divine sense of humor”.

However, to take just our own species, we certainly aren’t perfect. Prof. Toss points to our shortgevity and susceptibility to diseases by way of example. “Including a ‘sleep’ button might have been helpful to people suffering insomnia, and ‘plug and play’ organ swapping would be a real boon.”

Fig. 3, Hot swappable stomach, ISO13485 compliant: "a real boon"

Professor Toss thus concludes that, while we certainly show signs of intelligent design, there’s a lot left wanting. After all, a dog shows signs of intelligence. The lack of such obvious attributes as described above suggest that we are in fact not the work of an omnipotent being. Instead, it is now obvious that we were designed by an evolutionarily primitive god.

Some observers have called our Creator the “special needs god”, but Prof. Toss prefers the analogy of the baboon. “He was probably too busy playing with His own ass to fix a lot of obvious flaws in His designs.” The professor suggests that His failure to stamp out human vices such as jealousy, hatred, and transfats, demonstrates considerable lack of emotional maturity on the part of the Almighty.

By contrast, more evolutionarily advanced gods have created things like quantum physics and conceived of the seventh dimension. Our God appears on burnt pieces of toast.

Fig. 4, Evolution of the gods

As can be seen from the illustration, the most advanced gods obviate the need for their own existence through achieving utter perfection.

At this point, Frodologists will be concerned to know how evolutionarily advanced their Messiah is. We are proud to report that Frodo has never even considered taking credit for designing humans. He is of the opinion that if Jehovah wants that ignominious distinction, He can have it. Frodo is however hard at work on designing the Human 2.0. Reviving a German project initially begun in the 1940s, Frodo has gone back to the drawing board to overhaul our species’ design. The US Army has expressed interest in funding the project, while Georgia Tech is providing the necessary expertise. Frodo is confident that the new model will be a success. "As a hobbit, I'm much more evolutionarily advanced than the Creator of the Human 1.0. Natural selection actually finished off all His ilk yonks ago. He's the last one left!"

Unfortunately, as lack-witted as our Creator may be, He has got a crack team of lawyers. They are currently threatening to sue Frodo for an injunction over copyright and patent abuses in connection with the design of the Human 2.0. As the Creator of the Human 1.0, He is believed to have exclusive rights to the design.

The case continues.

No comments: