Panglossing Over the Dirty Bits

BPSDBThe evilutionary superscientist P-Zed has just finished debating a horrid simpleton (i.e., a professional creationist) on talk radio. Being a professor, P-Zed knew to read up in advance, which in this case was a laugh riot in itself, because it meant reading his opponent’s book, What Darwin Didn’t Know. One chapter, “Purposeful Design,” argues (among other things) that the sexual organs of the human female were designed to maximize the pleasure of the missionary position.

Yes, it’s another entry in the department of “you couldn’t make this up if you tried.” Better still, for my money, is this bit:

Dopamine, a chemical responsible for feelings of reward and pleasure, is released into the bloodstream in males and females after sex, just as it is released after ingesting a good meal or certain illicit drugs.

Wow. Think about what this means. Legs were meant to have trousers, and so we have trousers; noses were meant to carry spectacles, and so we have spectacles. . . and the brain was meant to get high on Ecstasy, so therefore we have Ecstasy!

Hmmm. I’m not so sure that Geoffrey Simmons has thought through the logical implications of his “design for pleasure” philosophy.

Afterthought: in the interests of science, could we convince those pill-popping teenagers to try something a little more novel instead, like indanylaminopropane? We need more data points!

6 thoughts on “Panglossing Over the Dirty Bits”

  1. I’ve listened to it, and my goodness, the IDevotee was hapless. And, apparently, clueless at how poorly prepared he sounded. I guess he thinks, like a lot of the MD creationists I’ve encountered, that objections based on personal plausibility carry weight in the scientific community—and of course, what sounds implausible to an MD must be impossible. My apologies in advance to any practitioner of the healing arts who doesn’t want to be lumped with Dr. Simmons, but, really, if we got rid of the engineers and the MD’s, there’d be almost no professional creationists.

  2. Damn ya mean my brain wasn’t meant to get high on Ecstasy after two decades of me thinking it was. lol. And yeah the Purposeful Design argument is one of the dumber ones creationalist use, as Janine points out above poor design is about as common as good design. lol.

    And btw I have tried indanylaminopropane and plenty more being someone who is rather interested in psychedelia. Tho I’m hardly a teen ager, lol.

    Regardless “pill-popping teenagers” would gladly try novel drugs like that, few however even see stuff like that or hear of it unless they read. I was lucky I knew chemists and researchers and stuff plus i also had some sense. Something alot of those pill-popping teenagers clearly lack. they’d end up hurting themselves, probably do anyway with what they do have.

  3. So a banana was designed to fit my hand, but something -um- closer to home so to speak, wasn’t?

    To Scott Hatfield’s short list, I would add biochemists. Of course the actual biochemists I have met aren’t creationists, but that seems to be another area from which cdesign proponentsists come.

Comments are closed.