The most asinine design argument award goes to...
DaveScot at uncommondescent has presented a beautiful fairytale (May 5th, 2007):
A interesting thing to think about is that bacteria, along with all other life on the earth, is doomed in another several billion years when the sun turns into a red giant and fries the earth to a crisp. That means the bacteria that have survived for billions of years have lived about half their lifetime. The only way bacteria could survive longer is if they can somehow find a new habitable planet and translocate to it. This seems to require telescopes to locate habitable planets and spacecraft to get from here to there. Maybe that’s why we are here - to make sure all life doesn’t die when the earth is no longer habitable. Maybe that’s been the “plan” all along and this has happened before many times on many other worlds with ours just one more link in the chain. Why else would be building telescopes that can find planets around other stars and spacecraft that can escape the solar system? There’s no practical benefit in it except perhaps for this. Maybe it’s a biological imperative and we really have no choice about building telescopes and spacecraft.
A few question pop into my mind when I read this:
1. Why can't DaveScot do a quick search on the internet and find out that bacteria can survive extremes of pressure, temperature and radiation - perhaps even those existing when rocks are, after a meteorite-impact, ejected from an Earth-like planet and scattered through the universe (all without using telescopes and rockets)?
2. Why would the bacteria have to survive the death of the Sun at all?
3. Why didn't the designer just seed these other worlds straight away without using us as a vehicle?
4. How inane can one be in one's suggestions for the designer's intentions?
5. How much empty rhetoric can DaveScot espouse in the name of intelligent design?
6. Why should I go on asking more questions?