Who made a pet rock? —Somebody!
Who made a gym sock? —Somebody!
Who made the salmon and sardines? —Nobody!
Who made a whatnot? — Somebody!
Who made a teapot? —Somebody!
Who made the buffalo and bees? —Nobody!
See, somebody, somebody,
Somebody had to make all the small things,
Somebody, somebody, that’s what they tell me,
That’s what they say but
Nobody, nobody made the sun, the moon and the trees
No, nobody, nobody, nobody did – no way!
Who made a gym sock? —Somebody!
Who made the salmon and sardines? —Nobody!
Who made a whatnot? — Somebody!
Who made a teapot? —Somebody!
Who made the buffalo and bees? —Nobody!
See, somebody, somebody,
Somebody had to make all the small things,
Somebody, somebody, that’s what they tell me,
That’s what they say but
Nobody, nobody made the sun, the moon and the trees
No, nobody, nobody, nobody did – no way!
His song provides an amusing introduction to the topic of intelligent design. As he points out, we can look at things as simple as socks and teapots and conclude that there is a designer behind them – somebody had to do something to make those. Yet we are willing to look around us at the much more complicated things in our world, like salmon and buffalo, and say that they just happened “by chance.”
Last week, a post on Angela Hunt’s blog caught my eye, as she approached this topic. She considers Darwinism to be the root of most of the world’s ills and points out how the theory of chance cheapens life. She challenges her readers to be open to the idea of intelligent design as a scientific theory that provides much better answers than evolution.
I’ve been challenged before on this blog that theories of intelligent design and creationism are not scientific. Angela provides a link to a helpful document produced by the Discovery Institute, answering many questions about intelligent design. The Institute explains that this theory “holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” This is a scientific theory, and they explain how it works:
The scientific method is commonly described as a fourstep process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Both Hunt and the Discovery Institute point out that intelligent design is not a new theory, but one that has been around for quite a while. In fact, the Discovery Institute notes that “the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution by natural selection—Alfred Wallace—strongly disagreed with Darwin and believed that nature exhibited evidence of intelligent design, especially when it came to the development of the human mind.” If we can look at clocks, computers, and cars, and conclude that someone smart must have designed those, how can we look at the human mind and think that it happened just by “natural selection” or “random chance”?
As Cowboy Randy’s song concludes… somebody made the big things too.

