The Implications (or Not) of “Intelligent Design”

Just wanted to point out an interesting thought over at (Illuminatus! Trilogy co-author and online instructor) Robert Anton Wilson’s site.

In essence, he proposes the notion that the possibilty of intelligent design in the universe does not in and of itself suggest — at all — the existence of a dominant “supreme being” (and certainly not the feudal-era hierarchical structure most religions mandate). As an example, Wilson provides the decentralized development of the ’net: Structures can develop in a counter-entropic fashion without requiring a central architect to instigate (or even guide) such development.

It’s just a comparison, of course; a model. To use one of Wilson’s own favorite arguments, one should be careful to avoid thinking that the map is the same as the territory mapped.

Not particularly fleshed out, or necessarily original, but worth pondering. Or at least throwing out there when a religious literalist throws out apparent intelligence of design as “evidence” of his or her particular deity — or when an adamant atheist throws out a lack of belief in a deity as “evidence” that any such appearance of intelligent design must be false.