Eyeballs Wired Backwards


This one is also off-topic in general, which is going to be a trend for a little while before I get back into the groove. Meanwhile, check out Scott Hartman’s awesome reconstruction of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, drawing from suggestions Andrea Cau and I made (independently) on the positions and identities of the original material (discussed here and here).

Okay, on to the meat. I read a funky little comic called Nodwick. It’s hilarious. Start here and work your way forwards. When you finally get to the current comic, you’ll see this bit:

Now, in context, this comic (which if you click on it reveals the whole page, and you should start here, at the one before this page) is a sort of true creation myth, with a horde of little gods to call its own. So in this story, it all works, but it makes a point that people made in our continuum-universe-whatsit.

This is an argument against Intelligent Design (ID), which is anything but. The argument goes that things are so complex or so engineered that they either 1) could not evolve or 2) by “stepping back” or through the analogy of “removing one part,” the thing fails to function. There have been numerous take downs on this, and I won’t go into it here, so go to Talk Origins instead. This argument tends to involve creationism, young earth creationism, special creationism, etc.. I could care less about those, and in this comic’s world it works, but is hilarious to point out, nonetheless. I myself am not a creationist, and am agnostic on the matter; but I am severely against the premise of ID because it is a faith-proposition enshrouded in the seeming of a science, which is isn’t, and that’s why the name is hilariously oxymoronic. It makes the direct proposition that an omniscient force … let’s call it “God” — because we’re not kidding ourselves, and its proponents likely do not believe in space aliens seeding the Earth with spores at the dawn of time) can have or did bring life out of lifelessness or, in some zanier corners of the philosophy’s Venn diagram, create humans whole from … let’s call it “dust.”

The hilarity ensues when the reasoning for certain problems of human anatomy, especially the backwards-wired eye (nerves on top of cones and rods, which interfere with light and create a blind spot in your vision), male nipples (men even still have milk-producing glands), the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and so forth. So I take a determinate stand against ID and those proposing it better explains things than evolution, which, it must be made clear, they use their “theory” to oppose. My stance has nothing to do with creationism or its proponents, and there is a substantial number of academics and scientists who accept, “believe” in and study evolution, including abiogenesis (life from lifelessness) who also believe in a deity or something. You guys are fine by me.

Anyways, enjoy the comic!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Eyeballs Wired Backwards

  1. Etsuko says:

    Good day! This is my first comment here so I
    just

    wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I genuinely enjoy reading through
    your articles. Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same

    subjects? Thanks a lot!

    • Thanks for asking. On the side bar to the blog, I have a short, but thorough blog roll of some of the best science writing out there. I highly recommend checking out Not Exactly Rocket Science and the Loom, first and foremost. There are also my “Non-Blog Links” in the bar beneath my banner. Those are pretty awesome, too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s