There was a bit of discussion going on over at C-Naff's and my bro's myspace pages about this lame-ass video (watch from about 2 min to about 4.5 min) where washed up 80's TV star Kirk Cameron (you'll remember him from Growing Pains) and his partner in evangelism, Ray Comfort feebly attempt to prove for certain that God does indeed exist using the examples of a soda can and a banana. It's a variant on the much larger theory of God's existence, the argument from design which basically states:

When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed.

"There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office, in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it..." --- William Paley

What follows is their basic argument...

Note that the banana:

• Is shaped for the human hand
• Has a non-slip surface
• Has outward indicators of inward content (different colors for ripeness)
• Has a tab for removal of wrapper
• Has a perforated wrapper
• Has a biodegradable wrapper
• Is shaped for the human mouth
• Has a point at the top for ease of entry
• Is pleasing to the taste buds
• Is curved toward the mouth to make eating easier

To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Ummmmm..... OK. But wrong.

They call this argument "The Atheists Worst Nightmare". That is if the atheist happens to be a bumbling idiot that knows nothing about logic or critical thinking.

This argument is full of holes, and of course since things like this ruffle my free-thinking feathers quite a bit, I thought I'd point some of them out. Some of the obvious ones that I caught on my own were...

1. What about coconuts. We eat those and it practically takes a sledgehammer to get into them. Not shaped for the hands not easy to eat. This is true for hundreds of other fruits and veggies.
2. A biodegradable wrapper. Um... all organic foods are biodegradable.
3. What make a banana any more suited for a human than for say... I don't know... A MONKEY?

Then I went out and did a bit of research. While at it I stumbled upon two great sites that address this issue. The first, The Skeptic Wikipedia takes a serious critical thinking style approach and deconstructs the argument as I began to do. Here's what it has to say:

• In nature, it is beneficial for fruits to have an attractive exterior. This encourages animals to eat them, spread their seeds and allow the fruit to reproduce. This would indicate that the fruit's appearance is nothing more than natural selection at work, rather a divine designer trying to impress us with shiny surfaces.
• Bananas were not designed by cosmic intervention, but by humans. Bananas are one of the first fruits domesticated and cultivated by human beings a little more than 7000 years ago. Humans have bred bananas selectively for smaller seeds and a tastier banana, in much the same way we have cultivated seedless grapes and watermelons.
• Wild uncultivated bananas are inedible by humans and contain seeds, this fact would appear to be contrary to belief that bananas were designed with humans in mind. (OUCH! That statement really hurts the argument)
• If this argument were really given serious consideration, then it is really a wonder why many other edible fruits and seeds have thorns or tough husks. These are perfectly reasonable features to expect as a product of evolution, but quite incredibly awkward when considering as a product of divine design.
• As is typical with design arguments, it is unjustifiably anthropocentric. In particular, as much as the colors of a banana would serve as an indicator of it's inner content to humans, it very likely served as an indicator to animals. In this case, the colors of the banana are a product of evolution, not foresight into future human consumption. Further anthropocentric bias is the remark that bananas are shaped for the human hand, and shaped for the human mouth. There is no reason to believe that the banana is intended for human mouths and hands any more than it is intended for monkey mouths and hands.
• Much of the evidence for design cited are superfluous, such as pointing out that the banana has a biodegradable wrapper (what makes the banana any more special than the billions of other organisms that biodegrade in nature?).
• The comparison between soda cans and bananas is a false analogy. The theory of Natural Selection does not address the origins of objects of recent arrival. Had bananas only been in existence for less than 100 years, as the Coca-Cola can, we would be more apt to posit a designer. There is an amazing array of things much more wonderful and complex than a soda can, for which we need not assume any intelligent design or purpose. They all share this property at least: a billion-year evolutionary heritage. Lacking this, the soda can does not belong in this class, and we must admit another explanation.
• And finally, for those with a mind in the gutter, the argument is ripe (no pun intended) for parody value.

Which leads us to the second site I came across, The Godless Bastard. He has an absolutely hilarious post using the same argument to explain that "God" actually "designed" the banana to be the perfect natural sex toy. HA! Take that creationists.

- these thoughts flowed through Jeff's fingers @ 2:05 PM