Intelligent Design Explained Intelligently

Intelligent DesignYou must have heard of Intelligent Design, right? No? Okay, let me explain briefly just what it is: Intelligent Design (I.D.) is a (snigger) "theory" put forward by some (snort) "scientists" to (choking! send help!) explain the universe without resorting to:

  • intelligence,
  • anything they learnt on their degree course,
  • asking another scientist for help,
  • asking a two year-old for help.

In a nutshell (one designed exclusively for the Earth Range by Almighty God and not some cheap, evolved knock-off) I.D. proponents argue that sure there’s a lot of evidence to support evolution and yes scientific models of the universe’s creation do seem to bear out pretty well in experiments and okay natural selection does appear to explain the many varied and wondrous shapes that nature has produced over the countless millions and billions of years but maybe that’s what we’re supposed to think, huh, huh? I.D. supporters point out that life is really, really complex and can cause headaches if thought about too hard so doesn’t Occam’s Razor indicate that it’s much more likely that an omnipotent and omniscient divinity thought "Wait! What about a little horse that swims underwater?"

Intelligent Design is an offshoot of ‘Paranoid Science’, a branch of reasoning the major tenet of which is "But what if God is simply testing our faith?" Other examples of Paranoid Science’s exhortations into the public sphere over the years have included:

  • God put dinosaur bones on the planet because there’s only room in Heaven for people who ignore the evidence of the eyes that God gave them, duh!,
  • appendicitis is proof of God’s displeasure since evolution should have evolved that dangly bit away aeons ago dumbass!,
  • you don’t believe in angels but dark matter is fine, yeah sure, whatever!,
  • banjo music is proof of a higher power, there is no scientific explanation for it, none!

Fans of Paranoid Science (P.S. International Community of Friends) and I.D. (Worldwide IDiots) fear God. Opponents of the two theologically-derived, scientific-sounding claptrap theories fear God-botherers. If God-botherers contented themselves with bothering God everybody would be fine but since God has failed to react to their botherations over the years – further proof that He exists since He would never reveal He’d been listening so explain that away Mister Professor Bees Evolved From Snakes Ph.D! – they’ve moved onto a target that actually does get distracted by the lunacy: everyone else.

The IDiots want I.D. taught in schools and they’ve got a prominent supporter in the guise of George W. "The ‘W’ Stands For ‘Woo! Yay! The Missing Link!’" Bush who endorsed teaching the subject on Monday. To be fair, regular scientists would also have no objection to Intelligent Design being taught in schools either. However, the former group want it taught as part of the science curriculum whereas the latter luminaries prefer it was interjected into a non-vocational course entitled "Successful Stand-Up Comedy".

Intelligent Design is backed by Christian groups. Their goal is to eventually relate every subject to religion in some way so as to make it impossible to think about anything other than God.

Intelligent DesignSports
Jesus didn’t play football, baseball, basketball, or tennis and neither will you! James and John did enjoy oily wrestling so that’s okay though.

Woodworking
Jesus didn’t play football, baseball, basketball, or tennis but he did enjoy his carpentry. If that’s not God’s way of saying "Chop down all the trees and build things that will be destroyed by tornadoes" then what is?

Sex Education
Sex education simply does not work. People are giving birth to non-Christians all over the place or, in some cases, taking preventative action to stop potential Christians from being born at all! That’s very nearly almost close to being in the proximity of a strong set of binoculars through which can be seen a large printed sign on a distant moon alluding to an imaginary similarity between contraception and bludgeoning babies on the fontanelle with an ice pick. And there’s no proof that babies come from sex anyway; it could all be a designed coincidence. Procreation through donating ribs – and only donating ribs – will soon be the sole "theory" of reproduction taught.

Computer Science
The binary system at the heart of any computer and the hexadecimal system somewhere in the lungs or spinal column are to be phased out. Digital devices will need to be switched over to an analogue system so as to properly implement the new U.S. Government-backed Cubit-Based processors. Base 2 and Base 16 will give way to Base 17 And A Bit Up To Around 22 Ish. Corruption of documents and sudden loss of files on the new operating systems prone to wild innacuracy is expected to be high. So no change there. Photorealistic rendering in games should be far superior; players of Half Eternity will really believe that they, as St Gordon Freeman, are battering the serpents in the Garden of Eden with their anti-gravity croziers. Spreadsheets will contain wild and fluctuating figures. Part of the costs of converting current machines to the new format will be met by Kenneth Lay from his personal fortune.

Author: Mark

Share This Post On

33 Comments

  1. The problem with what you’ve written here is that it is simply false. ID is quite distinct from creationism; it operates within the sphere of scientific method, generating and testing hyphothesis; it is falsifiable based on those hypotheses; many of the scientists who are promoting ID do not believe in the Bible; I don’t think there is any ID theorist who believes in the "young earth"; ID scientists have hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to their credit; and your post here is quite misinformed overall.

    But I don’t hold that against anyone except for the media and commentators who have also been spreading this kind of misinformation.

    Post a Reply
    • Tom

      ID is nothing more than ‘god of the gaps’:
      All it does is it takes one area where science is not yet fully understood, and then claims ‘godidit’.

      In the old days, people knew that the earth was flat, and God/Zeus/Odin moved the planets, and coloured the nights black, and the days blue. They believed stars were tiny dots up in heaven – maybe souls, or whatever nonsense. The Christian Bible even states that heaven is up amongst the clouds. Why did religion state it? Because at the time, it was not falsifiable. Humanity did not have the technology or the know how to refute it.

      Well… We found that a) the Earth is round, b) Planets move due to gravitational pull from the sun, c) stars are actually distant suns, d) The only thing up amongst the clouds are more clouds. We looked with our telescopes and SETI, and found no god sitting there, smiling at us. What did the religious guys do? They moved the deity further away. Suddenly god is not on the clouds anymore (like HIS BOOK SAYS), but now beyond sight of our telesciopes, and in Lius Giglio’s words, ‘on a scale far too big for us to even fathom’. Others have even said that God is perhaps in another dimension!

      Now, the religitards claim that since we don’t know a) What preceded the Big Bang (e.g. where did the energy come from), b) how exactly did life on earth originate and c) just why does animals evolve, they make up their usual crap again – it was all guided by god. Exactly the same arguement as 2000 years ago, with a new spin on it.

      Fact: Your Bible, Quran or Torah is nothing but a series of fibs entwined with a stack of lies. Your god is as likely to exist as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your religion is as useful to science as turbulence is to flying

      Post a Reply
  2. Tom, I’ve talked to every single scientist who supports I.D. – have you? – and, quite frankly, they’re a bunch of nutters. If they claim to not believe in the Bible or Young Earth then they freely admit to putting physics beneath astrology, phrenology, and gizzard-reading in their list of "Where To Seek Answers". Peer-reviews suffer from being performed by peers and cannot therefore be trusted. As to your statements that this post is "simply false" and "misinformed" I must inform you that this is a serious site that seriously looks into every serious point it raises and I have taken serious umbrage at your comments. I challenge you to a duel.

    Post a Reply
  3. Tom,
    You are a douchebag. You are a douchebag because you are a christian nut trying to make yourself appear that you are not. That is the basis of I.D. To make it appear to be a scientific theory when in fact it is creationism. If you choose to believe in fairy tales, you are more than welcomed to do so, but do not try to pollute the brains of impressionable children with your nonsensical ideology.

    Post a Reply
  4. "ID is quite distinct from creationism; it operates within the sphere of scientific method, generating and testing hyphothesis; it is falsifiable based on those hypotheses" – that sounded really good there Tom. Sounded quite scientific. Total rubbish and means nothing, naturally, just like ID, but well done all the same for saying it. You might convince some people with that line of argument but not, sadly, those with brains enough to recognize the difference between a humorous post and one that really does squat on your pet theory and crush it like a divinely-designed bug.

    Post a Reply
  5. If it operates in the "sphere of scientific methods", then where are all the peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting it? .. all NONE of them.

    If YOU claim that they are there (which we KNOW they aren’t) then please show us just one these scientific papers, otherwise we will hold you guilty of spreading this kind of misinformation that you accuse the media of spreading about your precious fruitcake beliefs, Tom.

    Post a Reply
  6. …And Jesus say unto the lord (toke), "..big daddy, howz about a platterpus?…" (exhale)…"a little beaver, duck, lizard poison-like foots, oh, yeah, it gots to lay eggs and be a mammal, too…"

    POOF! What we have here is Intelligent Creationism? Or is it just rubish? POOF! POOF! POOF! POOF! POOF! POOF! POOF! POOF!

    "..hey pops! we done fergot to give this dude a lady friend!…" POOF! POOF! (he got lesbians)

    Post a Reply
  7. I believe there may have been a spelling mistake in the word when Cretinism (to use the correctly revised spelling) was first advanced by American theologists
    That aside, could sum one from the Pie In The Sky Posse, explain how Jesus was able to ride into Jerusalem on the back of 2 donkeys simultaneously (St john) or how Able was able to take a wife, wen ol’ Adam hadn’t fathered one
    and if ‘e had wouldn’t that make Able guilty of an incestuous liaison or worse cos she must have been younger than him, a paedophile ?
    Failing that she mus’ have been a monkey
    (which clearly explains throwbacks like Bush n Blair)

    Post a Reply
  8. So…If I think that an intelligent being made the world out of a ham sandwich then that should be in the science curriculum too right? And how about Satanism, got to talk about their myths too.

    School will be so much fun!

    Great post. ID is rubbish

    Post a Reply
  9. Mark you got a miracle on your site that equals the ‘Dancing Madonna’ that was featured in the papers last week, (well alright I only saw it in The Mirror, I think? as I cheapskate’ly browsed tru the papers in W H Smiths, the newsagents)

    Darwin’s beard is growing over the rim of the plate!

    Post a Reply
  10. Mark u old devil, u crucify me! I ain’t laughed so much, since I got ‘em all sloshed, by turning water into wine, at the marriage feast at Canaan

    Post a Reply
  11. Shush, Son. What have I told you about boasting?

    Post a Reply
  12. Burp! wush a fine feast, too! Hey, pops! Howz about cowsh that shwim…we could calls ‘dem minotaurs, er, man-eaters, er….man’o’tees. And make ‘em dumb and slow, too. POOF!

    It might take me 7 days, though, you all know that story…

    Post a Reply
  13. Intelligent Design is the controversial assertion which states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by positing an intelligent designer.

    The problem with it is that the design of the universe is rubbish. Look at wasps. They are annoying and they sting you and they fly into beer. Even Richard Madeley, out of his skull on alchopops, would have drawn the line at wasps.

    Post a Reply
  14. I have a short answer and a long answer to that question. The short one is "No!!!"

    The long one includes an extra exclamation mark for good measure.

    Post a Reply
  15. The problem with intelligent design supporters is that on the one hand they say "look, we’re only saying that there was an initial design by an intelligent source" but on the other they’ll dismiss out of hand any argument that the intelligent source could possibly be a multidimensional sock puppet called Gerald and he’s evil incarnate. Instead it has to be the Christian idea of God and that’s the real issue. It’s religion, pure and simple, trying to get addressed in American public schools where it’s traditionally not allowed.

    Post a Reply
  16. I wish I had designed the universe. I would have never designed religion. I would have designed consequence-free casual sex instead.

    Post a Reply
  17. OK OK! I admit that even though I’d told everyone I quit smoking, I hadn’t . So I accidentally set that bush on fire. And then I was kinda drunk so I think I may have pretended to, like, have a converation with it n’stuff. Y’know, to like, like, all cool. I think I made up the Ten Commandments. I didn’t think they would catch on so quickly!

    Post a Reply
  18. What? You didn’t quit smoking? Ah man! And we all believed you too!

    Post a Reply
  19. Maybe I’ve been stuck in the lab for too long, but I’ve never heard of ID before! Has it been around for a while or is this a new theory? I tried looking it up in well known scientific resources, like ‘science direct’, ‘web of knowledge’ and ‘pub med’ but they’ve never heard of it either…

    Post a Reply
  20. Article? Joe obviously takes his blogging very seriously.

    Hey Joe! Call up some friends and go for a picnic! It’s a beautiful day outside, you lifeless prat!

    Post a Reply
  21. Pretty much the dumbest article I have read on ID.

    One tries one’s best. Of course, referring to something as dumb and then double-posting the comment (now deleted) plus failing to work out how to apply formatting styles is, well, just a trifle dumb too.

    WE exist. What are the options to that existence?

    1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes
    2) Intelligent, directed processes
    3) a combination of 1 & 2

    Demonstrate that life can arise from non-living matter ID goes away and Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Kenyon, Wellls et al., will also go away.

    And this intelligence that directs the process? In order to keep point 2 around please demonstrate exactly how it arises. What form does it take? How many interdimensional tentacles does it possess? Is it lonely?

    There is an awful lot of evidence against IDiotism, and not a single shred supporting it. Not even a slight indent where a shred used to be but has since decayed and blown away in the wind. That’s how shredless the evidence for your "theory" is. And then some. And my dad’s bigger than your dad too.

    Post a Reply
  22. When can we start teaching the truth – the world is a flat disk that sits on four elephants who ride on the back of an enormous turtle?

    Post a Reply
  23. "WE exist. What are the options to that existence?

    1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes"

    Indeed matey pretty much if yours is standard ID formulae for proof of a scientific hypothesis

    Look jus coz the ‘majority’ of Americans r thick have no inkling of philosophy, theology or understanding of scientific theory, hardly negates the law of gravity as proved
    I surmise that the same burden of proof is required to support the ID hypothesis
    For it is u, that has made the claim that ID is a immutable law! to f’kin’ prove it tosspot

    Flashback

    A young Issac Newton
    "I say sire Why does an apple not fall up, when it comes off the tree?"
    17th century idiotic Nob
    "Ye gads sire, hast thou taken leave of thy senses
    Wurst not the Almighty’s pleasure for it to be so Surly you can not question Divine will ? Beware sire that path leads to Bedlam and damnation etc etc

    Ahh sorry! I’ve lost interest trying to explain why proof is needed for suppositions advanced by idiots, partly because I just realised they have a monkey in the White House, which no doubt accounts for the ‘majority’ of Americans being bananas

    Post a Reply
  24. I know, it’s complete off-topic, but what the hell means "cleanup on aisle six"?

    Post a Reply
  25. henteaser: "cleanup on aisle six" is a referrence to the shopping experience at a supermarket. When the loudspeaker announces "cleanup on aisle six" it means that someone has dropped something (probably a jar of pickles) or done something they shouldn’t have (let a baby scream incessantly until I batter it in with a spatula from aisle nine) and the assistance of a cleaner is required. If used in general conversation it effectively means "oops, someone’s dropped something/made a mistake/said somethiong they shouldn’t have, send for the cleaners". Possibly.

    Post a Reply
  26. I’ll give you your money back if you can solidly refute the conclusion that Intelligent Design is true. Actually, I’ll give you double your money back.

    My book proves beyond any doubt, once and for all, that intelligent design must be true. The knowledge in the book is not covered by either side and when it is included in the discussion, it inevitably leads to only one conclusion. The premise is that human beings have an ability that cannot be the result of evolution alone. Also, humans are the only being on Earth that has this ability and it is impossible for any other being on earth to develop it.

    It is not necessary to use the idea of irreducible complexity or any other scientific research to conclude that ID is true. It is also not necessary to try to rely on belief or the bible. One only has to know what’s in the book.

    You will discover something about human beings that I think you don’t know anything about, or if you do know don’t realize the implications.

    I guarantee that you will not be disappointed in what you discover. The title of the book is absolutely correct. You will not be able to refute the proof. You will be forced to agree that an ability that humans have could not have happened or developed through evolution alone. The only way humans could have this ability is that at some point in the processes that resulted in human beings, design was necessary. You may feel that you do not need the knowledge in this book but you will realize you did after you read it.

    The Irrefutable Proof of Intelligent Design (Paperback)
    $18.50
    This book is available at http://www.cafepress.com/IntelDesProof.

    Sincerely,
    Laurence Topliffe

    Post a Reply
  27. Solidly refuting Intelligent Design would be easy. Solidly refuting it to you would be impossible. It would require an open mind that understands things without resorting to woo woo and invisible fairies and hilarious statements such as "it inevitably leads to only one conclusion" which come from a complete and utter lack of comprehension of really quite important but also really quite simple concepts of "evidence" and "testing" and "experimentation" and "analysis".

    Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean that you can concoct your own explanation that must be the answer.

    I don’t fully understand the process by which viruses spread; this does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that it’s word of mouth and a kick ass marketing campaign. I will rely on experts who have studied this to come up with the actual answer. Similarly, my knowledge of evolution is not all-encompassing so I will listen to scientists who have used science to scientifically examine, propose, test, and confirm the method by which evolution occurs. I will not pay attention to poorly-educated, religious nutters who treat the writing of former shepherds and tribespeople passing down occasionally embellished and frequently completely invented tales and dictats borrowed from earlier cultures as some authoritative answer to anything that might be a little too hard to grasp (or, more accurately, anything you really shouldn’t think about because thinking leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to less compliant little sheep). This includes you.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>