I’ve been fascinated by the chain of thought elaborated by Scott Sampson over at the Whirlpool of Life; his latest post continues his theme of linking scientific knowledge with storytelling in a way that might help overcome the dogmatism of certain elements of our society that seem content to have us toil in mediocrity. It also links one of my interests, acquired far too long after graduate school—the history of life on our planet—with another of my interests—astronomy—that I also acquired while I was putting the finishing touches on my grad school career in literature.
The evolution of the universe and the evolution of life. Perhaps similarly unlikely, but in a vast enough universe, similarly necessary. And perhaps even driven by the same engine: evolution?
Not that I have anything against intelligent design. Go on, click the link, I dare you. The kind of design I’m talking about is one where the creator is manifestly evident. There’s no need to resort to teleological arguments or philosophical leaps of faith, because the design principles are clearly stated, or so simple to figure out that you don’t even need a design statement (sort of like the iPod).
Shouldn’t all design be intelligent? My shower handles should be easy to turn off and on, the layout and typeface of my books should be both eye-catching enough to attract my attention and subtle enough that the form disappears and leaves you to concentrate on the content. My computer should turn on instantly rather than having to boot up.
My question is, why can’t we have more intelligent (ie, universal) design? Perhaps it’s in the nature of things that intelligence only evolves through trial and error?