Incident
#1--The Tulsa Zoo:
THE
NO-NAME ESSAYWell, they're at it again. Some folks are never going to get used to the theory of evolution. Never mind that Darwin's theory of common descent through natural selection has been called "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time" (Scientific American, April, 2005). While accepted as fact by scientists, save those associated with fundamentalist religions or Mel Gibson, biblical literalists cling to a mythological explanation of how we ended up as did, so far (stay tuned--it's not over, thankfully). Two recent incidents, neither involving the Kansas School Board for a change, have put the "creationist/intelligent design" explanation back in the news. (This stuff must sell newspapers.)
The first incident, appropriately enough, involves a zoo; the second incident comes from the Vatican, courtesy of the new pope. I'll summarize the two controversies, then mention why I (and someone else who is distinguished) believe no sensible creator, let alone, an intelligent designer, would in any way want authorship of human evolution.
Incident
#1--The Tulsa Zoo:
The Tulsa Zoo has long had an evolutionary science exhibit. Now the zoo board, acting on complaints from fundamentalist Christians, is considering a display that gives homage to a biblical account of the Earth's origins and human history. This, as you might expect, has sparked the usual and customary clash between science and religion, or between sensible folk and those whom Brian Misso terms "the intellectually challenged and emotionally unstable portion of our society." The Tulsa Zoo leaders set a precedent for religious artifacts long ago when the zoo erected a six-foot granite statue of Ganesha outside the Elephant Encounter. Now some Christians want equal time. They don't want their god upstaged by Ganesha, certainly not at the zoo.
How about a Christian display of a biblical story, like the Noah's ark tale? This would give them a lot more display space than a single elephant, as in Ganesha. The creationist folks could have a boat erected showing how eight million species were distributed on a single vessel, one no doubt somewhat primitive by today's standards. Let it show how old Noah coaxed pairs of everything up a few gangplanks, with instructive accounts of how they were quartered or at least separated, fed, entertained and kept under sanitary conditions. A bit of insight on waste disposal will be really cool. In that a single African elephant can weigh eight tons, this exhibit should make quite an attraction. The exhibit can offer lots of fascinating explanations, such as why none of the animals died on board (thus dooming that particular species). This is most impressive, as the death rates for people transported from the old world to the new during this country's expansion centuries after Noah's voyage were substantial. While everyone did not travel in first class during these 19th century passages, we can reasonably assume that it was somewhat easier to manage human travelers than it was for Noah and his crew thousands of years earlier, sailing on a ship full of wild beasts--not to mention two cats and two dogs.
Incident #2 -- The Vatican:
In
1996, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution was "more than just
a hypothesis." Pretty good, considering the Catholic Church's history
of murdering folks who took a similar view in earlier times. This was seen
as acquiescence by the Roman Catholic Church of Darwin's findings--or at least
a brave attempt to allow for the possibility that the theory of evolution might
be compatible with Christian faith. (Don't ask how.) Now the church is slipping
back to the old view of things. An influential cardinal named Christoph Schönborn,
the archbishop of Vienna, recently stated, with the new pope's approval, "Evolution
in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian
sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection
- is not." The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares: "God created
the world according to his wisdom." Enough said--now the Catholic Church
holds that there was no unguided, random variations, accidental mutations or
natural selections of fittest organisms associated with the history of mankind.
Why no sensible creator was involved in evolution.
As noted at the start of this essay, those who can't deal with
the scientific facts of evolution want everyone else, especially students in
biology classes, to be given another "theory." The "theory"
they insist upon posits a cosmic designer (sounds like a god) as sole engineer
who conceived (without tools, a laboratory or grants from a pharmaceutical
company) and brought into existence the complex, perfect wonders OF the universe
and all creatures IN the universe, particularly humans. 
Let's look closely at that latter claim. Are humans really such hot stuff? Is the design as perfect and cool as one would expect from the artistry of a brilliant-beyond-belief designer, a powerful-beyond-imagination creator and just basically a super-beyond-"wow" god? I don't think so. Just look at his handiwork in the world today. Note humans blowing themselves and other humans apart, daily, in the name of varied creators, while others plunder and despoil the environment, steal and cheat, rape and pillage, etc. ad nauseam. But never mind what I think. Consider the findings of David P. Barash (LA Times Commentary: "Does God Have Back Problems Too?
The illogic behind 'intelligent design," June 27, 2005.
Barash shows how "the living world is shot through with imperfection." He concludes: "Unless one wants to attribute either incompetence or sheer malevolence to such a designer, this imperfection - the manifold design flaws of life - points incontrovertibly to a natural, rather than a divine, process, one in which living things were not created de novo, but evolved." His most notable example is childbirth ( a route that ... is not only painful in our species but downright dangerous and sometimes lethal), but there are many others (for example, knee joints, testacles, lower back and a prostate gland that is too close to the urinary system). These design flaws are explained, as are the design wonders of a positive nature (for example, the body's ability to fend off disease, store memories in brain cells), as adaptations over time. Imperfections, of course but consider that, in Barash's words, "evolution didn't have the luxury of intelligent design."
Barash's
main point? "The point is that these and other incongruities testify to
the contingent, unplanned, entirely natural nature of natural selection. We
are profoundly imperfect, cobbled together rather then designed. And in these
imperfections reside some of the best arguments for our equally profound natural-ness."
A local infidel friend (of substantial girth) named Brent Yaciw* offered another design flaw example, namely, the need to diet! "Any competent engineer could easily have designed our digestive system with a simple waste gate that would cause food we wanted to eat, but that exceeded our body's needs, to pass through without being digested. Imagine being able to eat whatever we liked, in whatever quantity we desired, without any need for dieting! If there's a designer up there, "intelligent" would not be the adjective I'd apply, although I can understand why George W might think god was smart."
So, I rest my case. To link "intelligent" and "human evolution" in the same phrase is to be guilty of advancing an oxymoron. This must be obvious even if you only consider such sorry specimens of our species as Jeffrey Dahmer, Idi Amin and Congressman Tom DeLay.
Maybe the time has come to explain the title of this essay. If I had given it a name, I would have had to include key words like evolution, the Tulsa Zoo, the Catholic Church and the size of the birth canal. Who would read such a thing? Thus, the no-name essay.
Be well, enjoy and always look on the bright side of life.
*Brent Yaciw currently serves as Vice President and President Emeritus of the Atheists of Florida, has served in similar capacities for assorted Humanist and Atheist organizations, and has also regular hosted freethought oriented public access shows, including three seasons of "Backtalk with Brent" and twelve-plus seasons of "The Atheist Forum.