Arguments from Design
Hold on - did I say "intended"? I am convinced of the arguments of evolution so will correct that to "suited" as in "suited to living comfortably...". Thinking of things as having a purpose seems to come naturally to us as animals suited to purposeful behaviour. I deliberately make things happen so it can make sense for me to think that anything that happens must have someone to make it happen. This is a simplistic restating of the Argument from Design. It is much older than just the current 'Intelligent Design' movement (think Thomas Aquinas). If well phrased it can be philosophically seductive. The late-night discussions that arise from it can be fascinating. And contemplating it while standing alone by the ocean or in the mountains can be moving. But it is a shoddy justification for letting someone indoctrinate children at taxpayer expense.
Even if one accepts the arguments of Intelligent Design all it gives us is an intelligent designer rather than any particular intelligent designer. It may be the one God of the Christians and Muslims or the multi-faceted divine plethora of the Hindus or even that crazy monster thing promoted to amusing effect by the 'Pastafarians'. But the motivation of those involved in promoting Intelligent Design is rarely if ever the acceptance of any and all religions but rather the imposition by stealth of one religion in particular.
Anyway my intention here is to propose two arguments from design just for the heck of it. One is frivolous while the other is (or so I think) profound. What do you think?
The Argument from Chocolate Ripple Cake
Take a bunch of chocolate biscuits. Array them in a long horizontal stack. Cover them liberally in cream. Put them in the fridge. Come back a few hours later and they have become cake! Just like that! I understand there is a mundane process involved but bugger that! Chocolate Ripple Cake is a bloody miracle! Mind you the one time I attempted to make one it was sort of crunchy - O Divine Chocolate Cake why have you forsaken me?
The Argument from Electric Guitar
Take a string (it can be made of catgut or plastic or anything) and vibrate it. It produces a note. So far so good. Now take a steel string and vibrate it in the presence of an electromagnet that responds to the vibration by producing an electrical signal that can then be converted by an amplifier into a sound. The sound produced by the amp is of the same note as that produced by the vibrating string. The same note! Did it have to be this way? There is a scientific explanation to be sure but I say once more: Did it have to be this way? The same note is produced rather than just a cacophony or nothing but static. It is as if this phenomenon always existed in some Platonic form and just needed to be discovered. Do electric guitars (as well as all those other instruments using steel moving parts and electromagnets) talk to us of a universal Prime Mover? A universal Prime Mover who loves riffs and licks? And are we listening? I think others have felt the way I do if you listen to a few songs. Take it away Jim Steinman!
And the Angels had guitars even before they had wings
If you hold onto a chorus you can get through the night
- 'Rock & Roll Dreams Come Through' sung by Meat Loaf
and written by Jim Steinman