An ant's view of intelligent design theory

 

Drone1: Who do you think designed this bicycle?

Drone2: No one!

Drone1: No one?

Drone2: Bicycology is the study of complicated vehicles that give the appearance of having been designed for transportation. Yet all appearances to the contrary, the only bicycle maker in nature are the blind forces of physics.

Drone1: I find that hard to believe.

Drone2: It is almost as if the ant brain were specifically designed to misunderstand bicycology, and to find it hard to believe.

Drone1: I still think a human must have made this bicycle.

Drone2: That’s a science-stopper. That’s the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.

If you don’t understand how a bicycle came into being, never mind: just give up and say human did it. Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to man. Man-did-it teaches you to be satisfied with nonanswers. It’s a sort of crime against anthood.

Drone1: What’s your alternative?

Drone2: The world is divided into things that look designed (like birds and bicycles) and things that don’t (rocks and mountains). Things that look designed are divided into those that really are designed (anthills) and those that aren’t (bicycles).

Drone1: But isn’t a bicycle maker a simpler explanation than a fortuitous, self-organizing bicycle?

Drone2: The notion of a human bicycle maker belittles the elegant reality of the anthill.