Where else do you read arguments against intelligent design that include taking a swipe at government?
The argument from design, once the bulwark of Christian apologetics, has been shot so full of holes that it is no wonder it has had to be abandoned. The more, indeed, the theologian seeks to prove the wisdom and omnipotence of God by His works, the more he is dashed by the evidence of divine incompetence and stupidity that the advance of science is constantly turning up. The world is not actually well run; it is very badly run, and no Huxley was needed to labor the obvious fact. The human body, very cunningly designed in some details, is cruelly and senselessly bungled in other details, and every reflective first-year medical student must notice a hundred ways to improve it. How are we to reconcile this mixture of finesse and blundering with the concept of a single omnipotent Designer, to whom all problems are equally easy? If He could contrive so efficient and durable a machine as the human hand, then how did He come to make such botches as the tonsils, the gall bladder, the ovaries and the prostate gland? If He could perfect the elbow and the ear, then why did He boggle the teeth?
Having never encountered a satisfactory – or even a remotely plausible – answer to such questions, I have had to go to the trouble of devising one myself. It is, at all events, quite simple, and in strict accord with all the known facts. In brief, it is this: that the theory that the universe is run by a single God must be abandoned, and that in place of it we must set up the theory that it is actually run by a board of gods, all of equal puissance and authority. Once this concept is grasped the difficulties that have vexed theologians vanish, and human experience instantly lights up the whole dark scene. We observe in everyday life what happens when authority is divided, and great decisions are reached by consultation and compromise. We know that the effects at times, particularly when one of the consultants runs away with the others, are very good, but we also know that they are usually extremely bad. Such a mixture, precisely, is on display in the cosmos. It presents a series of brilliant successes in the midst of an infinity of failures. (“The Cosmic Secretariat,” 1924)
A member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, finds Mencken’s critique…. of certain Protestant denominations congenial because he… has much to say in objection to these denominations.
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017-01-23-0000/dg-hart-daming-words
LikeLike
Bill Kauffman’s review of the new Mencken collection also commends DGH for the Damning Words biography
http://www.ohioswallow.com/book/A+Saturnalia+of+Bunk
LikeLike
Drinking alcohol is nothing. Not drinking alcohol is nothing. But the only way to really prove that you are not fundamentalist is not becoming Gentile. It’s having a drink
http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/16/3-lessons-from-prohibition-which-started
LikeLike
Philip Roth–. “No one I know of has foreseen an America like the one we live in today. No one (except perhaps the acidic H. L. Mencken, who famously described American democracy as “the worship of jackals by jackasses”) could have imagined that the 21st-century catastrophe to befall the U.S.A., the most debasing of disasters, would appear not, say, in the terrifying guise of an Orwellian Big Brother but in the ominously ridiculous commedia dell’arte figure of the boastful buffoon.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/books/review/philip-roth-interview.html?_r=0
LikeLike
mcmark, Roth on Mencken. Ding ding.
LikeLike