Intelligent Design

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Teach the fallacy: Proper order of things)
m (Changing one bit of latin for a softer startup.)
(24 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
   
   
'''Intelligent Design''', is the '''''absolutely true''''' and '''''totally scientific''''' theory that the Universe is so mind-bogglingly complex that it could only have been designed and constructed by an equally, if not more complex, "intelligent designer", whom we shall call the "Creator". It might be the [[Christian]] [[God]] ...but it might not, and we're not telling! This Creator might not have been ''a'' creator at all, but rather a [[Intelligent Design By Committee|committee of creators]]. Therefore the official version of the theory makes absolutely no reference to a Christian God. In fact, the theory was run through a word processor which also checked for all common misspellings, so this is an absolutely '''''certain fact'''''! This is what makes Intelligent Design '''''totally scientific'''''. (Even though the main intelligent designerists say it ''is'' the Christian god in an accidentally leaked, top-secret document called the “Door Stop Strategy” <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy The designer is the Christian god]</ref>, but don't tell anyone.)
+
'''Intelligent Design''', is the '''''absolutely true''''' and '''''totally scientific''''' theory that the Universe is so mind-bogglingly complex that it could only have been designed and constructed by an equally, if not more complex, "intelligent designer", whom we shall call the "Creator". It might be the [[Christian]] [[God]] ...but it might not, and we're not telling! This Creator might not have been ''a'' creator at all, but rather a [[Intelligent Design By Committee|committee of creators]]. Therefore the official version of the theory makes absolutely no reference to a Christian God. In fact, the theory was run through a word processor which also checked for all common misspellings, so this is an absolutely '''''certain fact'''''! This is what makes Intelligent Design '''''totally scientific'''''. <font color = white>(Hidden message to loyal followers of the One True Faith: it really ''is'' the Christian God! We promise! But don't tell anyone. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy The designer is the Christian god]</ref></font>
   
 
==The proof==
 
==The proof==
Intelligent design was conceived by the highly-respected <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=532 Respect of William Demski]</ref> scientific genius [[William Dembski]] of the world-renowned Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a highly prestigious and respected University in Louisville, [[Kentucky]]. Billy was an eccentric genius and was shunned by lesser members of the scientific community as a result of petty jealousy of Billy’s great skills.
+
Intelligent design was conceived by the highly-respected <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=532 Respect of William Demski]</ref> scientific genius [[William Dembski]] of the world-renowned Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a highly prestigious and respected University in Louisville, [[Kentucky]]. Dr. Demski was an eccentric genius and was shunned by lesser members of the scientific community as a result of petty jealousy of Dr. Demski great skills.
   
Some biologists, like the highly religious Ken G. Miller of Shit University <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_university info on Shit University, Rhode Island]</ref>, Rhode Island, claim that since Dr. D. is a mathematician, he shouldn’t claim to be a major authority on biology. Some of Ken’s grad students like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Griffin Brian Griffin] are actually animals rather than humans (Brian is actually a dog). This is because Ken is in fact a mad scientist.
+
Some biologists, like the highly religious Ken G. Miller of Brown University <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_university]</ref>, Rhode Island, claim that since Dr. Demski is a mathematician, he shouldn’t claim to be a major authority on biology. Some of Ken’s grad students like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Griffin Brian Griffin] are actually animals rather than humans (Brian is actually a dog)<ref>F. A. Stone, Dumass, et al. "Analysis of Fictional Anthropomorphic Graduate Students" ''Journal of Lax Standards'' #8</ref>. This is because Ken is in fact a mad scientist.
   
Billy had been gathering evidence for many years that evolution was incorrect. Billy’s vision, insight and legendary determination led to the formation of the following arguments:
+
Dr. Demski had been gathering evidence for many years that evolution was incorrect. Dr. Demski's vision, insight and legendary determination led to the formation of the following arguments:
   
 
*Evolution isn’t mentioned in the bible
 
*Evolution isn’t mentioned in the bible
*My parents told me that evolution is wrong
+
*Evolution is wrong.<ref>Mom, Dad. "Evolution, A Myth Your Teachers Teach You". ''Bedtime Daily Press''</ref>
*The people at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary say it’s wrong too
+
*Evolution is designed to spread atheism.<ref>Rev. Lovejoy. "Evolution's Connections To Heathenism". ''Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Press''</ref>
*I have a degree in mathematics and know how to use ''really'' big words
+
*I have a degree in mathematics and know how to use ''really'' big words.
   
One other compelling argument that intelligent design is true stems from the following Logic Train <sup>tm</sup>:
+
One other compelling argument that intelligent design is true stems from the following Logic Train:
   
 
*William Dembski is a pudding
 
*William Dembski is a pudding
Line 27: Line 27:
 
*Proof is in William Dembski
 
*Proof is in William Dembski
   
If the proof is already in Dembski then he does not need to provide ''scientific'' proof that it’s true.
+
If the proof is already in Dembski then he does not need to provide ''scientific'' proof that it’s true, ''argumentum ad absurdum''.
   
 
== ID itself==
 
== ID itself==
   
[[Image:Questionabletoast.jpg|222px|thumb|ID is a rational reconstruction of how we detect design in common life. Remember that
+
[[Image:Questionabletoast.jpg|222px|thumb|ID is a rational reconstruction of how we detect design in common life. Remember your mathematics classes -- there is no such thing as a false positive.]]
"There Is No Such Thing As A False Positive".]]
+
[[Image:Pope-darwin.jpg|222px|thumb|Charles Darwin recanted on his deathbed and became a devout Christian.]]
   
 
The purpose of intelligent design, according to the Wedge Document, is:
 
The purpose of intelligent design, according to the Wedge Document, is:
Line 41: Line 41:
 
If that sounds like it is motivated by religion and politics rather than science, then pretend you didn't read it, and move on.
 
If that sounds like it is motivated by religion and politics rather than science, then pretend you didn't read it, and move on.
   
ID relies on modern ''information [[theory]]''. Information theory was developed by Claude Shannon of the Bell Telephone Company. It states that anything which conveys information has useful parts and redundant parts. For example “Congratulations sir, you are now a father!” could strip down on redundant parts and increase the information-conveying parts by changing it to “you now have a son!” Since about 98% of human DNA is redundant (not used) it could be said that no intelligent designer could have made it; therefore only Microsoft or the clumsy and cumbersome process of natural selection could create a genome with so much redundant data. None of which can be called intelligent (see [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]].)
+
ID relies on modern ''information [[theory]]''. Information theory was developed by Claude Shannon of the Bell Telephone Company, and states that anything which conveys information has useful parts and redundant parts. For example “Congratulations sir, you are now a father!” could strip down on redundant parts and increase the information-conveying parts by changing it to “you now have a son!” But, if we slightly rework the definition to state its ''obvious'' implication that information can only be added by an intelligent designer, we now have a solid law on which to base ID.
   
If you think that’s bad, just wait until you hear this. The genome of the crested newt has about 40 billion bases, whereas a human has only got about 3 billion (with only 20,000-25,000 genes)! The newt's genome is more than 13 times larger than that of a human. Quite a lot of redundant data there, don’t you think? True intelligent designers (scientists and engineers) always cut back on redundant data, so no truly intelligent designer would lay out a human (or newt) genome this way. This does not matter though, for intelligent design has recently been superseded by ''intelligent design by committee'', which adequately explains the cumbersome and crappy layout of a typical organism's genome – the red tape and bureaucracy of a committee.
+
Human DNA contains large amounts of information, much in the same way that your freezer contains the information to create all kinds of crystal patters in the ice of a freezing ice cube. After all, if your freezer didn't contain this information, creating these patterns would be adding information, which requires a designer. This would mean that ice was God, which is logically impossible, ''quid pro quo''.
   
With these facts in mind, we can see that the outmoded, WRONG theory of Evolution cannot be proven to be more than 99% true, so it's just a guess, really. A guess is not fact; what is not fact is not truth; and what is not truth is a lie. Therefore, Evolutionists are lying, and we Intelligent Designerists must be right! QED! Ipso facto! Ad hoc! Wang chung! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!
+
Since human DNA contains information, and random processes cannot add information, an intelligent designer must have added this information.
   
Still not convinced? Then we will get even more sciencer! The Second Law of [[Thermodynamics]] states that "in a closed system, all things tend toward [[entropy]]." Now, we all know that a DNA molecule is hardly a closed system, but that does not matter, because the theory of thermodynamics itself is just another <s>theory</s> guess! Therefore we can freely ignore arbitrary bits of it, and intelligenterly conclude that ALL things race toward entropy! (even when enthalpy is decreasing, as in the oxidation of food molecules and the breakdown of ATP - like we said, we ignore some parts of thermodynamics which contradict what we're proving). So you can see that if Evolution were NOT wrong and DNA did evolve over time, we would not find evidence of so-called "[[survival of the fittest]]"; instead, we would only find evidence of entropy, such as hermaphroditism, Ford and hereditary genetic defects. You may have heard of such things, but they do not really exist: Those things are just cases of demonic possession and/or <strike>God's</strike> the unknown Creator's punishment for immorality.
+
Still not convinced? Then we will get even more sciencer. he Second Law of [[Thermodynamics]] states that "in a closed system, all things tend toward [[entropy]]." As DNA is enclosed in a cell, which is in turn enclosed in your body, which is in the world, and so on, we are looking at a highly closed system.<ref>Smith, Brown, and Jakovski, DDS. "Arguments Based on Material We Don't Understand." ''Big Book of BS'' (Simon and Scheister)</ref> Thus, things must always tend toward chaos in DNA. So you can see, if Evolution were not wrong, and DNA did evolve over time, we would not find evidence of so-called "[[survival of the fittest]]"; instead, we would only find evidence of entropy, whales being born with legs, fruit flies living twice their normal age in controlled experiments, and flowers speciating to the point where they can no longer crossbreed, ''ad hoc sic''. No such things exist.<ref>Author, Article. "What my friend told me a few months ago."</ref>
   
 
Other proofs that ID is an undisputable fact:
 
Other proofs that ID is an undisputable fact:
   
 
* Evolution simply cannot be true because scientists' minds can grasp it. The TRUE truth can only be understood by <s>God</s> the Creator.
 
* Evolution simply cannot be true because scientists' minds can grasp it. The TRUE truth can only be understood by <s>God</s> the Creator.
* Towering intellects like [[George W. Bush]] say Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. ''So there!''
+
* [[George W. Bush|Towering intellects]] say Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools.
 
* Intelligent Design is not quite as stupid as [[Stupid Design|SD]]
 
* Intelligent Design is not quite as stupid as [[Stupid Design|SD]]
 
* ID can withstand criticism from small-minded science bigots.
 
* ID can withstand criticism from small-minded science bigots.
* Modern-day miracles and <s>God's</s> the Creator's tiredness after creating the universe in six days and raising all those dead people. Therefore it makes perfect sense that the only miracles we see today are [[Virgin Mary]] apparitions on toast.
+
* Modern-day miracles, such as [[Virgin Mary]] apparitions on toast.
 
* [[Toast]] is magical spiritual substance through which the ancient Hebrew people communicated with God and wrote the bible per His instructions.
 
* [[Toast]] is magical spiritual substance through which the ancient Hebrew people communicated with God and wrote the bible per His instructions.
 
* The Wizard of ID said so.
 
* The Wizard of ID said so.
Line 63: Line 63:
 
==Scientific Discoveries==
 
==Scientific Discoveries==
   
The best lack of evidence that ID is correct is the remarkably innovative and relatively new (about 4000 years old perhaps) concept of “irreducible complexity”. In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forth by [[Michael Behe]], who defines it as: “life is like really complex, you know? I don’t get this evolution crap. It must be wrong”. Almost every scientist in the world supports the concept of irreducable complexity. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community Real scientists supporting irreducible complexity]</ref>
+
The best lack of evidence that ID is correct is the remarkably innovative and relatively new (about 4000 years old perhaps) concept of “irreducible complexity”. In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forthby [[Michael Behe]], who defines it as: “life is like really complex, you know?. Almost every scientist in the world supports the concept of irreducable complexity. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community Real scientists supporting irreducible complexity]</ref>
   
Behe uses the [[analogy]] of a mantrap to illustrate the concept of intelligent design to destroy mankind and revert at least 149 years of scientific progress. Another trick involves manipulating scientific lingo by saying “it’s only called the ''theory'' of evolution therefore it’s not proven true. Just like Newton's ''theory'' of gravity and Einstein's special and generalized ''theories'' of relativity. It is worth noting that Galileo first came up with the ideas of relativity and gravity and the Catholic Church hated him. What more evidence do you need?"
+
Behe uses the [[analogy]] of a "blind watchmaker" to illustrate the concept of intelligent design. Let's say that you were walking along the beach and you found a gold watch. Would you assume that the watch was created by a designer, or that it "evolved" from a bunch of wriggling gears? After all, if you take out one gear, the entire watch doesn't work! What if you walked across the beach and found a nuclear reactor? Why, you'd assume that the watchmaker made it as well. A shoe? The watchmaker made it. A fish? Also made by the watchmaker. And even if you did find the watch on a beach full of a bunch of wriggling gears and watches with intermediary stages of functionality, you would assume that they, too, were made by the watchmaker, ''quod ad argumentum.''
   
The theory of Intelligent Design was apparently proven scientifically beyond all possible doubt by an unnamed scientist in 1994. Unfortunately, instead of immediately alerting current fourteen-term President and Christ figure [[Ronald Reagan]], the scientist made the unfortunate decision of taking his theories to an evolutionary biologist for confirmation. After proceeding to the biologist’s ten-thousand acre manor estate, which, according to some reports, was infested with insolent talking household appliances, the scientist made his report to a figure later described as “shrouded in the blackest black shadow,” sitting behind a massive mahogany desk. After hearing what the scientist had to say, the biologist reportedly made a phone call to the [[Liberal_media|Jew-Controlled Gay Loving Democrat Liberal Elite Media]]. Though the exact orders given by the JCGLDLEM remain unknown, the biologist spoke a single word and instantly the scientist was consumed and skeletonized by a swarm of lab-coat-garbed teacher’s assistants. The lone copy of the document that so absolutely and empirically proved ID was slowly burned by one of the biologist’s cigarettes, which were purportedly gold fringed and kept in a monogrammed, leather-bound and possibly jewel-encrusted case.
+
Another important thing to note is to understand scientific lingo. Evolution is only a ''theory'' therefore it’s not proven true. Just like Newton's ''theory'' of gravity and Einstein's special and generalized ''theories'' of relativity. It is worth noting that Galileo first came up with the ideas of relativity and gravity and the Catholic Church hated him. What more evidence do you need?"
  +
  +
The theory of Intelligent Design was apparently proven scientifically beyond all possible doubt by an unnamed scientist in 1994. Unfortunately, instead of immediately alerting current fourteen-term President and Christ figure [[Ronald Reagan]], the scientist made the unfortunate decision of taking his theories to an evolutionary biologist for confirmation. After proceeding to the biologist’s ten-thousand acre manor estate, which, according to some reports, was infested with insolent talking household appliances, the scientist made his report to a figure later described as “shrouded in the blackest black shadow,” sitting behind a massive mahogany desk. After hearing what the scientist had to say, the biologist reportedly made a phone call to the [[Liberal_media|Jew-Controlled Gay Loving Democrat Liberal Elite Media]]. Though the exact orders given by the JCGLDLEM remain unknown, the biologist spoke a single word and instantly the scientist was consumed and skeletonized by a swarm of lab-coat-garbed teacher’s assistants. The lone copy of the document that so absolutely and empirically proved ID was slowly burned by one of the biologist’s cigarettes, which were purportedly gold fringed and kept in a monogrammed, leather-bound and possibly jewel-encrusted case. <ref>Jewowitz, Jewy. "How to Raise Your IQ By Eating Goyish Scientists Who Know Too Much". ''New England Journal of Evil'', Mar 1995.</ref>
   
 
When asked to explain how they are privy to these events, Intelligent Designerists typically respond with “How are ''you'' privy to these events?” and make their escape in the resulting confusion. Note that this story explaining the lack of proof behind ID is not agreed upon by all ID advocates. Others assert that the scientist in question simply had the document stolen from him by a gang of passing [[black people]]. A third group typically claims that “Proof is for [[communists]]. You're not a communist, are you?"
 
When asked to explain how they are privy to these events, Intelligent Designerists typically respond with “How are ''you'' privy to these events?” and make their escape in the resulting confusion. Note that this story explaining the lack of proof behind ID is not agreed upon by all ID advocates. Others assert that the scientist in question simply had the document stolen from him by a gang of passing [[black people]]. A third group typically claims that “Proof is for [[communists]]. You're not a communist, are you?"
Line 73: Line 73:
 
Of course you're not.
 
Of course you're not.
   
==Teach the fallacy==
+
==Teach the Truth==
   
 
[[Image:Teachboth.jpg |thumb|350px|right|Both sides should be heard…..]]
 
[[Image:Teachboth.jpg |thumb|350px|right|Both sides should be heard…..]]
Line 92: Line 92:
 
==Criticisms from Small-Minded Science-Bigots==
 
==Criticisms from Small-Minded Science-Bigots==
   
Although many reputable scientists around the world, something approaching 10, support the revolutionary and wonderfully original theory of intelligent design, only one of them is a biologist: Michael Behe. A [[BBC]] reporter asked him a series of questions about his spectacular new theory. The reporter’s questions and Behe’s responses are shown below:
+
Although many reputable scientists around the world support the revolutionary and wonderfully original theory of intelligent design (unlike the ten or so who believe in evolution) some people can't help but arguing against it. Thus, we present some sample responses to criticisms from Behe.
   
 
===Argument 1===
 
===Argument 1===
   
''Reporter:'' Isn't Intelligent Design just Creationism in disguise?
+
''Q:'' Isn't Intelligent Design just Creationism in disguise?
   
''Behe: '' No! This is one of the biggest misconceptions about ID and to lump it in with creationism is nothing short of fallacy. Creationism is the notion that life did not evolve by natural means but instead was created by an intelligent being. Intelligent Design on the other hand, states that, well you know, what were the lottery numbers this week?
+
''A:'' No! This is one of the biggest misconceptions about ID and to lump it in with creationism is nothing short of fallacy. Creationism is the notion that life did not evolve by natural means but instead was created by an intelligent being. Intelligent Design on the other hand, states ''(Editor's Note: will complete this section after consulting with pastor)''.
   
 
===Argument 2===
 
===Argument 2===
   
''Reporter:'' About this information theory business... Are you saying that the Creator put more information into our genes than he even possessed?
+
''Q:'' About this information theory business... Are you saying that the Creator put more information into our genes than he even possessed?
   
 
Stated another way: If we are so complex that we must have been engineered by a space alien, is it not true that the Creator would also have been pretty damned complex? Doesn't that mean that the Creator must have been created by another Creator? And what about the Creator's Creator's Creator?
 
Stated another way: If we are so complex that we must have been engineered by a space alien, is it not true that the Creator would also have been pretty damned complex? Doesn't that mean that the Creator must have been created by another Creator? And what about the Creator's Creator's Creator?
   
''Behe: '' You're going to go to Hell!
+
''A:'' The road to Hell is paved with questions of good intention.
   
 
===Argument 3===
 
===Argument 3===
   
''Reporter:'' What makes you think the design was intelligent? Really it's not; just look around you. [[Flying squirrels]]? [[Crabs]] and the [[platypus]]? How about the ocelot, [[llama]], [[koala]] or the back-to-front human retina? No reasonable person can seriously believe someone [[intelligence|intelligent]] designed these [[:Category:Animals|animals]]!
+
''Q:'' What makes you think the design was intelligent? Really it's not; just look around you. [[Flying squirrels]]? [[Crabs]] and the [[platypus]]? How about the ocelot, [[llama]], [[koala]] or the back-to-front human retina? No reasonable person can seriously believe someone [[intelligence|intelligent]] designed these [[:Category:Animals|animals]]!
   
[[Richard Dawkins]] claimed to prove [[evolution]] was bunk and Intelligent Design a fact in his book "Tumbling Down Mount Improbable", wherein he asserts that "given the existence of [[mosquitoes]], [[tornadoes]], [[infidelity]], and [[war]], it should be clear to any [[television]]-consuming being that the [[universe]] was designed by a [[God]] who is desperate for entertainment." Nevertheless, flying squirrels, crabs, ocelots, koalas and the the back-to-front human retina were scientifically determined to be products of an [[Unintelligent Design]]. See [[New Intelligent Design]].
+
''A:'' [[Richard Dawkins]] proved [[evolution]] was bunk and Intelligent Design a fact in his book "Tumbling Down Mount Improbable", wherein he asserts that "given the existence of [[mosquitoes]], [[tornadoes]], [[infidelity]], and [[war]], it should be clear to any [[television]]-consuming being that the [[universe]] was designed by a [[God]] who is desperate for entertainment."<ref>''Misunderstanding Sarcasm Monthly'', Apr 2004, p.226</ref> If Dawkins believed in this, you don't need things like [[Unintelligent Design]]. See [[New Intelligent Design]].
 
In fact Dawkins produced a sequel to "Tumbling Down Mount Improbable" called "The View While Tumbling Down Mount Improbable" in which he explains why the Intelligent Designer created the the back-to-front human retina the way he did.
 
 
''Behe: '' What? You're wrong! George W. Bush! Dembski! So there!
 
   
 
===Argument 4===
 
===Argument 4===
   
''Reporter:'' Surely this is more a question of [[theology]] rather than of science? If a school in [[Kansas]] wants to teach this alternative "theory" shouldn't they be doing so in a [[Religious Education]] lesson? Shouldn't science get to stick some stickers on religious texts saying "the information within this publication is not supported by certain [[facts]] established from the rigorous scientific confirmation of empirical data"? EH?
+
''Q:'' Surely this is more a question of [[theology]] rather than of science? If a school in [[Kansas]] wants to teach this alternative "theory" shouldn't they be doing so in a [[Religious Education]] lesson? Shouldn't science get to stick some stickers on religious texts saying "the information within this publication is not supported by certain [[facts]] established from the rigorous scientific confirmation of empirical data"? EH?
   
''Behe: '' School kids are going to be indoctrinated with ''something'', so it might as well be something that any high-school dropout would agree is science! Sheesh, why work hard to collect rigorous confirmations and empirical data? That would require effort and maybe even good math skills! It's much easier just to get John Q. and Bessy-Ann Public to go the School Board and '''vote''' that Intelligent Design is true! Face it: We intelligenter people outnumber you pansy scientists, and we're gonna kick your ass!
+
''A: '' School kids are going to be indoctrinated with ''something'', so it might as well be something that any high-school dropout would agree is science. In fact, I hold here a letter signed by over eight thousand high school dropouts attesting that it is.
   
 
==Intelligent Design in the Classroom==
 
==Intelligent Design in the Classroom==
 
[[Image:Intelligent design classroom.jpg|222px|thumb|Intelligent Design in the classroom.]]
 
[[Image:Intelligent design classroom.jpg|222px|thumb|Intelligent Design in the classroom.]]
In recent years, the ongoing bias in science classes towards scientific explanations has reached unacceptable levels. Studies show that science teachers stubbornly refuse to teach ideas that are not scientific. Instead, students are forced to hear only one side of the issue in their science classes: the factual one.
+
In recent years, the ongoing bias in science classes towards scientific explanations has reached unacceptable levels. Studies show that science teachers stubbornly refuse to teach ID. Instead, students are forced to hear only one side of the issue in their science classes: the one presented by "scientists".
 
The Intelligent Design movement was formed in the deserts of Kuwait as a response to this pervasive bias in our children's education. After coming to American shores near Austin, Texas, the Intelligent Designerists completely overthrew that state's educational system. Further victories were had in the intelligentest and most forward-thinking states: Kansas and Georgia. The goal of the ID movement is to ensure that children are not exposed only to science in science class, but to ALL classes of ideas, so long as those ideas are held by televangelists and other proponents of ID. Also, their rules only apply to the theory of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]] and not to any other scientific theory, law, or concept, because natural selection is so unfair and discriminates against people who are unfit.
 
   
  +
The Intelligent Design movement was formed as a response to this pervasive bias in our children's education. First appearing near Austin, Texas, the Intelligent Designerists overthrew that state's educational system -- a triumph for Christ (or whatever aliens or other beings may have designed life). Further victories were had in the intelligentest and most forward-thinking states: Kansas and Georgia. The goal of the ID movement is to ensure that children are not exposed only to science in science class, but to ALL classes of ideas, so long as those ideas are held by televangelists and other proponents of ID. Also, their rules only apply to the theory of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]] and not to any other scientific theory, law, or concept, because natural selection is so unfair and discriminates against people who are unfit, ''panem et circenses''.
   
 
==Copyright Issues==
 
==Copyright Issues==
Line 134: Line 135:
 
Intelligent design isn’t just limited to biology – many other scientific discoveries contradict what’s written in the [[Bible]] too, including: The location of the earth in the universe, the shape of the earth and the creation of the earth and the sun. These issues are addressed in the new field of ID called “[[Intelligent Geography]]”.
 
Intelligent design isn’t just limited to biology – many other scientific discoveries contradict what’s written in the [[Bible]] too, including: The location of the earth in the universe, the shape of the earth and the creation of the earth and the sun. These issues are addressed in the new field of ID called “[[Intelligent Geography]]”.
   
Since geography isn’t, strictly speaking, science, religious people and relativists (aka dick heads) don’t mock it very often. Chemistry might be a better candidate. As any relativist will tell you, the theory that the moon is a quarter of the size of the earth and is a million miles away is on a par with the theory that the moon is a calabash tossed into the sky, hanging only just of reach above the treetops. (As hard as it is to believe, this is actually true.)
+
Since geography isn’t, strictly speaking, science, religious people and relativists don’t mock it very often. Chemistry might be a better candidate. As any relativist will tell you, the theory that the moon is a quarter of the size of the earth and is a million miles away is on a par with the theory that the moon is a calabash tossed into the sky, hanging only just of reach above the treetops.
   
Following from that “logic”, we can say that the theory that a benzene molecule is a flat hexagon of six carbon atoms and a delocalized central electron ring is on a par with the theory that consuming the philosopher's stone with a glass of tonic will give one eternal life. So it follows that alchemy is as valid, maybe even more valid, than chemistry.
+
Following from that “logic”, we can say that the theory that a benzene molecule is a flat hexagon of six carbon atoms and a delocalized central electron ring is on a par with the theory that consuming the philosopher's stone with a glass of tonic will give one eternal life. So it follows that alchemy is as valid, maybe even more valid, than chemistry, ''acta est fabula plaudite''.
   
It is important that children hear all sides of a scientific debate and the discovery, which took human scientists 40 years to work out (1825 – 1865) that benzene is cyclical, is just as important as the discovery, which some retarded mouth-breathing drunkard came up with while pissing onto the side of a tree, that some non-existent item could allow him to watch soccer and smoke cigarettes forever. (admittedly the idea that the philosopher's stone could give one eternal life came up more than a millennium before soccer, television and cigarettes; but we’ll just ignore that – crap is a mainstay of relativism, and when in Rome…)
+
It is important that children hear all sides of a scientific debate and the discovery, which took human scientists 40 years to work out (1825 – 1865) that benzene is cyclical, is just as important as the mystical realization of the existence of a magical rock that grants eternal life. Clearly the latter seems more important (eternal life versus cyclic hydrocarbons), but design proponents believe in fairness.
   
Hence it was decided by Tony Blair (who the fuck else?) that alchemy should be a mandatory part of the British National Curriculum (just like religious education is). New O-level (now known as Occult level) alchemy textbooks have been introduced and will be used in parallel with ''Of Pandas and People'' to teach 6th graders science. Since 99.9% of non-Chinese students study psychology, this won’t have much of an effect.
+
Hence it was decided by Tony Blair that alchemy should be a mandatory part of the British National Curriculum (just like religious education is). New O-level (now known as Occult level) alchemy textbooks have been introduced and will be used in parallel with ''Of Pandas and People'' to teach 6th graders science. Since 99.9% of non-Chinese students study psychology, this won’t have much of an effect.
   
 
==How to Talk to a Scientist - If You Must==
 
==How to Talk to a Scientist - If You Must==
Line 150: Line 151:
 
* Remind them that [[God]] loves you and hates them, which makes you better and more qualified to make scientific judgments.
 
* Remind them that [[God]] loves you and hates them, which makes you better and more qualified to make scientific judgments.
 
* Drown them out by shouting that you get your information from "a higher authority."
 
* Drown them out by shouting that you get your information from "a higher authority."
* Tell them that in this [[post-modern]] world of [[relativism]], people need to be taught that things are not always as they seem. I mean, if the guy from [[Depeche Mode]] is married to a woman, you really can't prove or disprove anything.
+
* Tell them that in this [[post-modern]] world of [[relativism]], people need to be taught that things are not always as they seem. I mean, if the guy from [[Depeche Mode]] is married to a woman, you really can't prove or disprove anything, ''tempus edax rerum''.
* We all know life is just too complex to have started on its own. And even though the "creator" is obviously ''more'' complex than any other life in the universe, there is no reason to worry about where ''HE'' came from. Just put that question out of your mind. And if a scientist asks you explain how an ultra-advanced god could just spontaneously create itself out of nothing, kick him in the balls and run away. God doesn't like people who asks too many questions. Or to be more precise, God doesn't like people who ask any questions at all.
+
* Dazzle 'em with [[bullshit|science]]: The growing, irrefutable body of knowledge about [[DNA]] is a gold mine for proponents of Intelligent Design. [[Paul Davies]], a researcher and professor of physics at the University of Queensland and at the Australian Center for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, says: "Just as the sequence of letters in an instruction manual is independent of the chemistry of the paper and ink, so the ‘letters’ in DNA which make up the information are independent of the chemical properties of nucleic acid." This will confuse the lay person who believes in "science" and make them give up talking to you. You will win the argument by default.
* Dazzle 'em with [[bullshit]]: The growing, irrefutable body of knowledge about [[DNA]] is a gold mine for proponents of Intelligent Design. [[Paul Davies]], a researcher and professor of physics at the University of Queensland and at the Australian Center for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, says: "Just as the sequence of letters in an instruction manual is independent of the chemistry of the paper and ink, so the ‘letters’ in DNA which make up the information — are independent of the chemical properties of nucleic acid." This will confuse the lay person who believes in "science" and make them give up talking to you. You will win the argument by default.(Unless your scientist goes into the "that is a circular argument" argument,(which is really a polite and urbane way of saying "Wha-...that's bull!") meaning your bluff has been called and you will have to continue.)
+
* Tell them the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible and try to sound really serious when you say it and then point out that all scientists say this all the time and it's an indisputed fact. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misunderstandings_about_evolution#Entropy_and_life Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics]</ref>
* Tell them the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible and try to sound really serious when you say it and then point out that all scientists say this all the time and it's an indisputed fact. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misunderstandings_about_evolution#Entropy_and_life Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics]</ref> If they show any sign of understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, walk away really quickly!
 
 
* Show them movies of apes doing gross, disgusting things, like the YouTube movie of a Gorilla licking his [bleep] in the zoo. Nobody wants to be related to filthy embarrassing animals (even if drunk human rock-stars or intern-hungry televangelists do the same things as the apes).
 
* Show them movies of apes doing gross, disgusting things, like the YouTube movie of a Gorilla licking his [bleep] in the zoo. Nobody wants to be related to filthy embarrassing animals (even if drunk human rock-stars or intern-hungry televangelists do the same things as the apes).
 
* Show them studies proving that believing in evolution makes you a hippie commie liberal. If that fails, accuse them of atheism. (This isn’t so effective outside the US, because atheists don’t face resentment and persecution in other places in the civilized world. Tell them they are French instead - they’re hated the world over. If it’s a French person you’re speaking to, tell them they’re English.)
 
* Show them studies proving that believing in evolution makes you a hippie commie liberal. If that fails, accuse them of atheism. (This isn’t so effective outside the US, because atheists don’t face resentment and persecution in other places in the civilized world. Tell them they are French instead - they’re hated the world over. If it’s a French person you’re speaking to, tell them they’re English.)

Revision as of 19:42, February 8, 2007

Kansas
Approved by the Kansas State Board of Education
This page meets all criteria and requirements for use as teaching material within the State of Kansas public school system. It consists of facts, not of theories, and students are encouraged to believe it uncritically, and to approach alternatives critically.
LOLZPOPZ

Intelligent design may be an option, but it isn't mandatory.

“No, no. You don't understand. There aren't two debatable arguments here. See, on one side there's me being right, and on the other side there's you being an idiot.”
~ Charles Darwin on Larry King Live debating against Intelligent Design

“The difference in intelligence between me and my kinsfolk is too immense to be explained with simple Darwinist evolution.”
~ Oscar Wilde on Intelligent Design


Intelligent Design, is the absolutely true and totally scientific theory that the Universe is so mind-bogglingly complex that it could only have been designed and constructed by an equally, if not more complex, "intelligent designer", whom we shall call the "Creator". It might be the Christian God ...but it might not, and we're not telling! This Creator might not have been a creator at all, but rather a committee of creators. Therefore the official version of the theory makes absolutely no reference to a Christian God. In fact, the theory was run through a word processor which also checked for all common misspellings, so this is an absolutely certain fact! This is what makes Intelligent Design totally scientific. (Hidden message to loyal followers of the One True Faith: it really is the Christian God! We promise! But don't tell anyone. [1]

The proof

Intelligent design was conceived by the highly-respected [2] scientific genius William Dembski of the world-renowned Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a highly prestigious and respected University in Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Demski was an eccentric genius and was shunned by lesser members of the scientific community as a result of petty jealousy of Dr. Demski great skills.

Some biologists, like the highly religious Ken G. Miller of Brown University [3], Rhode Island, claim that since Dr. Demski is a mathematician, he shouldn’t claim to be a major authority on biology. Some of Ken’s grad students like Brian Griffin are actually animals rather than humans (Brian is actually a dog)[4]. This is because Ken is in fact a mad scientist.

Dr. Demski had been gathering evidence for many years that evolution was incorrect. Dr. Demski's vision, insight and legendary determination led to the formation of the following arguments:

  • Evolution isn’t mentioned in the bible
  • Evolution is wrong.[5]
  • Evolution is designed to spread atheism.[6]
  • I have a degree in mathematics and know how to use really big words.

One other compelling argument that intelligent design is true stems from the following Logic Train:

  • William Dembski is a pudding
  • Proof is in the pudding
  • Proof is in William Dembski

If the proof is already in Dembski then he does not need to provide scientific proof that it’s true, argumentum ad absurdum.

ID itself

Questionabletoast

ID is a rational reconstruction of how we detect design in common life. Remember your mathematics classes -- there is no such thing as a false positive.

Pope-darwin

Charles Darwin recanted on his deathbed and became a devout Christian.

The purpose of intelligent design, according to the Wedge Document, is:

  • "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
  • "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

If that sounds like it is motivated by religion and politics rather than science, then pretend you didn't read it, and move on.

ID relies on modern information theory. Information theory was developed by Claude Shannon of the Bell Telephone Company, and states that anything which conveys information has useful parts and redundant parts. For example “Congratulations sir, you are now a father!” could strip down on redundant parts and increase the information-conveying parts by changing it to “you now have a son!” But, if we slightly rework the definition to state its obvious implication that information can only be added by an intelligent designer, we now have a solid law on which to base ID.

Human DNA contains large amounts of information, much in the same way that your freezer contains the information to create all kinds of crystal patters in the ice of a freezing ice cube. After all, if your freezer didn't contain this information, creating these patterns would be adding information, which requires a designer. This would mean that ice was God, which is logically impossible, quid pro quo.

Since human DNA contains information, and random processes cannot add information, an intelligent designer must have added this information.

Still not convinced? Then we will get even more sciencer. he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in a closed system, all things tend toward entropy." As DNA is enclosed in a cell, which is in turn enclosed in your body, which is in the world, and so on, we are looking at a highly closed system.[7] Thus, things must always tend toward chaos in DNA. So you can see, if Evolution were not wrong, and DNA did evolve over time, we would not find evidence of so-called "survival of the fittest"; instead, we would only find evidence of entropy, whales being born with legs, fruit flies living twice their normal age in controlled experiments, and flowers speciating to the point where they can no longer crossbreed, ad hoc sic. No such things exist.[8]

Other proofs that ID is an undisputable fact:

  • Evolution simply cannot be true because scientists' minds can grasp it. The TRUE truth can only be understood by God the Creator.
  • Towering intellects say Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools.
  • Intelligent Design is not quite as stupid as SD
  • ID can withstand criticism from small-minded science bigots.
  • Modern-day miracles, such as Virgin Mary apparitions on toast.
  • Toast is magical spiritual substance through which the ancient Hebrew people communicated with God and wrote the bible per His instructions.
  • The Wizard of ID said so.
DarwinLOL

Charles Darwin, as drunk as a monkey's uncle

Scientific Discoveries

The best lack of evidence that ID is correct is the remarkably innovative and relatively new (about 4000 years old perhaps) concept of “irreducible complexity”. In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forthby Michael Behe, who defines it as: “life is like really complex, you know?”. Almost every scientist in the world supports the concept of irreducable complexity. [9]

Behe uses the analogy of a "blind watchmaker" to illustrate the concept of intelligent design. Let's say that you were walking along the beach and you found a gold watch. Would you assume that the watch was created by a designer, or that it "evolved" from a bunch of wriggling gears? After all, if you take out one gear, the entire watch doesn't work! What if you walked across the beach and found a nuclear reactor? Why, you'd assume that the watchmaker made it as well. A shoe? The watchmaker made it. A fish? Also made by the watchmaker. And even if you did find the watch on a beach full of a bunch of wriggling gears and watches with intermediary stages of functionality, you would assume that they, too, were made by the watchmaker, quod ad argumentum.

Another important thing to note is to understand scientific lingo. Evolution is only a theory – therefore it’s not proven true. Just like Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's special and generalized theories of relativity. It is worth noting that Galileo first came up with the ideas of relativity and gravity and the Catholic Church hated him. What more evidence do you need?"

The theory of Intelligent Design was apparently proven scientifically beyond all possible doubt by an unnamed scientist in 1994. Unfortunately, instead of immediately alerting current fourteen-term President and Christ figure Ronald Reagan, the scientist made the unfortunate decision of taking his theories to an evolutionary biologist for confirmation. After proceeding to the biologist’s ten-thousand acre manor estate, which, according to some reports, was infested with insolent talking household appliances, the scientist made his report to a figure later described as “shrouded in the blackest black shadow,” sitting behind a massive mahogany desk. After hearing what the scientist had to say, the biologist reportedly made a phone call to the Jew-Controlled Gay Loving Democrat Liberal Elite Media. Though the exact orders given by the JCGLDLEM remain unknown, the biologist spoke a single word and instantly the scientist was consumed and skeletonized by a swarm of lab-coat-garbed teacher’s assistants. The lone copy of the document that so absolutely and empirically proved ID was slowly burned by one of the biologist’s cigarettes, which were purportedly gold fringed and kept in a monogrammed, leather-bound and possibly jewel-encrusted case. [10]

When asked to explain how they are privy to these events, Intelligent Designerists typically respond with “How are you privy to these events?” and make their escape in the resulting confusion. Note that this story explaining the lack of proof behind ID is not agreed upon by all ID advocates. Others assert that the scientist in question simply had the document stolen from him by a gang of passing black people. A third group typically claims that “Proof is for communists. You're not a communist, are you?"

Of course you're not.

Teach the Truth

Teachboth

Both sides should be heard…..

We all know that ID has absolutely nothing to do with religion; it’s all about letting children hear both sides of a genuine scientific debate. Other examples are shown in the image to the right. Here are some more examples:

  • Alchemy or chemistry
  • Magic or physics
  • Astrology or astronomy
  • Phrenology or neurology
  • Shamanism or evidence-based medicine
  • The Big Bang or earth-centered universe
  • Transfer of phlogiston or fire as oxidation of reduced fuel
  • Heat as Brownian motion or calorique release
  • Describe light using the luminiferous aether or quantum mechanics
  • Describe gravity using the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or general relativity

Criticisms from Small-Minded Science-Bigots

Although many reputable scientists around the world support the revolutionary and wonderfully original theory of intelligent design (unlike the ten or so who believe in evolution) some people can't help but arguing against it. Thus, we present some sample responses to criticisms from Behe.

Argument 1

Q: Isn't Intelligent Design just Creationism in disguise?

A: No! This is one of the biggest misconceptions about ID and to lump it in with creationism is nothing short of fallacy. Creationism is the notion that life did not evolve by natural means but instead was created by an intelligent being. Intelligent Design on the other hand, states (Editor's Note: will complete this section after consulting with pastor).

Argument 2

Q: About this information theory business... Are you saying that the Creator put more information into our genes than he even possessed?

Stated another way: If we are so complex that we must have been engineered by a space alien, is it not true that the Creator would also have been pretty damned complex? Doesn't that mean that the Creator must have been created by another Creator? And what about the Creator's Creator's Creator?

A: The road to Hell is paved with questions of good intention.

Argument 3

Q: What makes you think the design was intelligent? Really it's not; just look around you. Flying squirrels? Crabs and the platypus? How about the ocelot, llama, koala or the back-to-front human retina? No reasonable person can seriously believe someone intelligent designed these animals!

A: Richard Dawkins proved evolution was bunk and Intelligent Design a fact in his book "Tumbling Down Mount Improbable", wherein he asserts that "given the existence of mosquitoes, tornadoes, infidelity, and war, it should be clear to any television-consuming being that the universe was designed by a God who is desperate for entertainment."[11] If Dawkins believed in this, you don't need things like Unintelligent Design. See New Intelligent Design.

Argument 4

Q: Surely this is more a question of theology rather than of science? If a school in Kansas wants to teach this alternative "theory" shouldn't they be doing so in a Religious Education lesson? Shouldn't science get to stick some stickers on religious texts saying "the information within this publication is not supported by certain facts established from the rigorous scientific confirmation of empirical data"? EH?

A: School kids are going to be indoctrinated with something, so it might as well be something that any high-school dropout would agree is science. In fact, I hold here a letter signed by over eight thousand high school dropouts attesting that it is.

Intelligent Design in the Classroom

Intelligent design classroom

Intelligent Design in the classroom.

In recent years, the ongoing bias in science classes towards scientific explanations has reached unacceptable levels. Studies show that science teachers stubbornly refuse to teach ID. Instead, students are forced to hear only one side of the issue in their science classes: the one presented by "scientists".

The Intelligent Design movement was formed as a response to this pervasive bias in our children's education. First appearing near Austin, Texas, the Intelligent Designerists overthrew that state's educational system -- a triumph for Christ (or whatever aliens or other beings may have designed life). Further victories were had in the intelligentest and most forward-thinking states: Kansas and Georgia. The goal of the ID movement is to ensure that children are not exposed only to science in science class, but to ALL classes of ideas, so long as those ideas are held by televangelists and other proponents of ID. Also, their rules only apply to the theory of evolution by natural selection and not to any other scientific theory, law, or concept, because natural selection is so unfair and discriminates against people who are unfit, panem et circenses.

Copyright Issues

Proponents of ID claim that creation happened 69 years ago and that copyright subsists in all attributes of the Intelligent Design. The current patentholder is a company called SCO, who also holds the patents for planets Saturn and Pluto and the recipe for water. SCO has ID lawyers working feverishly to prevent cloning on the basis that this would be a breach of copyright.

Intelligent design outside of biology

Alchemy

New alchemy text books for use at the new version of the O-level: Occult level.

Intelligent design isn’t just limited to biology – many other scientific discoveries contradict what’s written in the Bible too, including: The location of the earth in the universe, the shape of the earth and the creation of the earth and the sun. These issues are addressed in the new field of ID called “Intelligent Geography”.

Since geography isn’t, strictly speaking, science, religious people and relativists don’t mock it very often. Chemistry might be a better candidate. As any relativist will tell you, the theory that the moon is a quarter of the size of the earth and is a million miles away is on a par with the theory that the moon is a calabash tossed into the sky, hanging only just of reach above the treetops.

Following from that “logic”, we can say that the theory that a benzene molecule is a flat hexagon of six carbon atoms and a delocalized central electron ring is on a par with the theory that consuming the philosopher's stone with a glass of tonic will give one eternal life. So it follows that alchemy is as valid, maybe even more valid, than chemistry, acta est fabula plaudite.

It is important that children hear all sides of a scientific debate and the discovery, which took human scientists 40 years to work out (1825 – 1865) that benzene is cyclical, is just as important as the mystical realization of the existence of a magical rock that grants eternal life. Clearly the latter seems more important (eternal life versus cyclic hydrocarbons), but design proponents believe in fairness.

Hence it was decided by Tony Blair that alchemy should be a mandatory part of the British National Curriculum (just like religious education is). New O-level (now known as Occult level) alchemy textbooks have been introduced and will be used in parallel with Of Pandas and People to teach 6th graders science. Since 99.9% of non-Chinese students study psychology, this won’t have much of an effect.

How to Talk to a Scientist - If You Must

When people want to argue with you that "real" science is used every day to do things like cure diseases or make genetically-enhanced grains, you need to know how to put them in their place.

  • Say things like "Well if you remember chemistry, that just disproves evolution."
  • Remind them that evolution and Intelligent Design are both "theories." Compare Einstein's Theory of Relativity to your theory that Michael Jackson is really Elvis. One theory is as good as another, so both should be taught.
  • Remind them that God loves you and hates them, which makes you better and more qualified to make scientific judgments.
  • Drown them out by shouting that you get your information from "a higher authority."
  • Tell them that in this post-modern world of relativism, people need to be taught that things are not always as they seem. I mean, if the guy from Depeche Mode is married to a woman, you really can't prove or disprove anything, tempus edax rerum.
  • Dazzle 'em with science: The growing, irrefutable body of knowledge about DNA is a gold mine for proponents of Intelligent Design. Paul Davies, a researcher and professor of physics at the University of Queensland and at the Australian Center for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, says: "Just as the sequence of letters in an instruction manual is independent of the chemistry of the paper and ink, so the ‘letters’ in DNA — which make up the information — are independent of the chemical properties of nucleic acid." This will confuse the lay person who believes in "science" and make them give up talking to you. You will win the argument by default.
  • Tell them the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible and try to sound really serious when you say it and then point out that all scientists say this all the time and it's an indisputed fact. [12]
  • Show them movies of apes doing gross, disgusting things, like the YouTube movie of a Gorilla licking his [bleep] in the zoo. Nobody wants to be related to filthy embarrassing animals (even if drunk human rock-stars or intern-hungry televangelists do the same things as the apes).
  • Show them studies proving that believing in evolution makes you a hippie commie liberal. If that fails, accuse them of atheism. (This isn’t so effective outside the US, because atheists don’t face resentment and persecution in other places in the civilized world. Tell them they are French instead - they’re hated the world over. If it’s a French person you’re speaking to, tell them they’re English.)

References

  1. The designer is the Christian god
  2. Respect of William Demski
  3. [1]
  4. F. A. Stone, Dumass, et al. "Analysis of Fictional Anthropomorphic Graduate Students" Journal of Lax Standards #8
  5. Mom, Dad. "Evolution, A Myth Your Teachers Teach You". Bedtime Daily Press
  6. Rev. Lovejoy. "Evolution's Connections To Heathenism". Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Press
  7. Smith, Brown, and Jakovski, DDS. "Arguments Based on Material We Don't Understand." Big Book of BS (Simon and Scheister)
  8. Author, Article. "What my friend told me a few months ago."
  9. Real scientists supporting irreducible complexity
  10. Jewowitz, Jewy. "How to Raise Your IQ By Eating Goyish Scientists Who Know Too Much". New England Journal of Evil, Mar 1995.
  11. Misunderstanding Sarcasm Monthly, Apr 2004, p.226
  12. Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

See Also

190px-Featured.png

Potatohead aqua Featured Article  (read another featured article) Featured version: 8 February 2007
This article has been featured on the front page. — You can vote for or nominate your favourite articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.
<includeonly>Template:FA/08 February 2007Template:FA/2007</includeonly>
Personal tools
In other languages
projects