ShareThis Page
Incompetent design? |

Incompetent design?

| Wednesday, November 9, 2005 12:00 a.m

There are some difficulties about accepting the “intelligent design” idea of evolution ( “Consciousness: The intelligent designer,” Oct. 25 and

Would an all-knowing deity utilizing evolution as a method of creation be so sloppy that he ended up with humans who have genetic propensities to be colorblind, deaf and affected with diabetes, hemophilia and dozens of other innate, inherited flaws, including an inclination toward alcoholism and depression?

The human tendencies to develop foot and lower-back problems demonstrate that we as a species are not physically perfect for bipedal motion.

If humans were really created by God using intelligent design evolution, I’d expect a bit more refinement in design. I’d also expect the elimination of wisdom teeth and the appendix, and giving birth to human babies to be much simpler, quicker and less dangerous to human mothers.

My arguments against intelligent design are also arguments against creation by a special act of God — unless God possesses a whimsical and somewhat perverse sense of humor.

Joseph Forbes
South Side

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.