Intelligent Design

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Bouncywikilogo3
For the religious among us who choose to believe lies, the so-called experts at Wikipedia think they have an article about Intelligent Design.
“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

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's not likely; more likely is Fred Savage, or maybe even Frank Zappa and we're not telling! That's what makes it scientific.[1]

Please note, in reverence to the Christian God, even though this has nothing to do with the Christian God, Intelligent Designer should always be capitalized. [2] If you refuse to capitalize it we’ll smite you in the name of sweet Jesus.

This Creator might not have been a creator at all, but rather a committee of creators. Therefore the official 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 misspelllings, so this is an absolute certain fact!

The proof

Intelligent design was conceived by the highly-respected[3], completely unbiased, scientific genius William Dembski of the world-renowned Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a highly prestigious and respected part of the University of Louisville, Kentuckistan. Dr. Dembski is an eccentric genius and was shunned by lesser members of the scientific community as a result of petty jealousy of Dr. Dembski's great skills.

Some biologists, like the highly religious Ken G. Miller of Brown University [4], Rhode Island, claim that since Dr. Dembski is a mathematician, he shouldn’t claim to be a major authority on biology. Some of Ken’s graduate students, like Brian Griffin, are actually animals rather than humans (Brian is actually a dog)[5]. This is because Ken is in fact a mad scientist.

Velociraptor assaults Moses

Proof of Intelligent Design: Moses is attacked by a ferocious Velociraptor, thus proving that dinosaurs did indeed exist only a few thousand years ago.

Dembski's proof:

Let \varphi : \Omega \to \Omega be a universal function over the set \Omega of cardinality \aleph_0 (where \Omega is assumed to be the set of all possible organisms) which is instantiated by the universal Turing machine U_\varphi. Let \Phi,\Psi and \Theta be some funky symbols that are just along for the ride and let \S be a persian cat. Consider K_\varphi(\S), the complexity of \S \in \Omega relative to \varphi. Clearly, we have that if K_\varphi(\S) \ne 0 , then \int_{[\Phi,\Psi]}\Theta(\mu)d\mu = K_\varphi(\S) \Leftrightarrow |\Omega| = \aleph_0^{\aleph_0} - and that's proves that everything can really be anything, except the it would suggest that the meaning of life is not much of anything at all - unless you can get a good guitar and strum in the key of E, then you have a string theory. Hence K_\varphi(\S) = 0 and \S was just kind of created from nothing by U\varphi. Hence U\varphi must be some intelligent entity and evolution is for stupid-heads.

Unable to counter (or indeed make sense) of such persuasive arguments, the proponents of evolution (who were never astute to the virtues of learning to tune a guitar, let alone listen to Devo), but who included some notable Japanese goddesses, have instead opted to scurrilously cover them up by ensuring that no reputable scientific journal will publish them. Dr. Dembski had been gathering evidence for many years that evolution was incorrect before discovering this proof. Dr. Dembski's vision, insight and legendary determination also led to the formation of the following arguments:

  • Evolution isn’t mentioned in the bible, but baseball is - for it was after all "In the Big Inning that god Created the Heavens and the Earth"
  • Evolution is wrong, or at least unprovable because the nine days of creation were shortened to seven on account of rain.[6]
  • Irreducible complexity is right and readily demonstrated by examples such as Canadian Football. After all, it uses two big, scientific words and yet still leaves the viewer confounded when he tries to figure out what the quantum mechanical symbol for balk should be.
  • Evolution is designed to spread atheism and an addiction for televisions instead of board games or participation in real athletic activities[7]
  • We have no fossil record of Giraffe's necks getting longer, but we do have a record of George Bush's nose getting longer, and he once owned a baseball team.
  • I have a degree in thermodynamics with a GPA of absolute zero.

One other compelling argument 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. Other food-related proofs exist as well.[8]

The Banana Theory

Bananamath

The perfect design of the banana suggests it was created by God for the purpose of insertion into homo butts.

The compelling and intelligent design of the banana offers concrete proof that there is a higher power that designed everything. Originally contrived by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the theory elaborates on different characteristics of the banana that make it useful to human use - which according to the two, clearly indicates the work of a designer."

Inception of Theory

While using bananas to milk one another's prostate glands, Cameron and Comfort discovered that Chiquita had distributed a product so clearly designed that it was impossible to refute the evidence any longer. Before long, the two were working hard on a video that would forever change the on-going battle between Intelligent Design pseudo-scientists and science-backed Evolution. [2]

Flaws in Theory

Instantly, critics of The Banana Theory jumped into the fray to proclaim the theory... bananas. Pointing out not only the unique relation the curvature of the banana has to the proximity of Kirk Cameron's prostate; it was also pointed out that bananas have the unique curvature associated with touching a woman's G-Spot. Relation to the human anatomy aside, it was also mentioned in various critiques that the bananas used by Cameron and Comfort were most likely genetically engineered to suit human favor. Bananas found in the wild are often ugly and don't have near the prostate milking power of a banana one might find in the grocery store.

Retraction of Theory

After being brutally humbled by the whole of the internet and their prostate milking venture realized, Comfort and Cameron sheepishly retracted their theory and stated that it was nothing more than a joke. While just about everyone knows it's about the dumbest fucking thing anyone could possibly use as an argument against evolution, careless forum posters on religion and evolution boards worldwide still use it as evidence against evolution.

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. (OK, he was already a devout Christian when he proposed the theory of evolution, and this is a cheap Photoshop, but we say he did, and that's all the proof we need).

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 tack on "or aliens", and move on.

ID relies on modern information theory. Information theory was developed by Claude Shannon of the Ba'al 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 are a father!” 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 patterns 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. There is not a problem with the freezer containing information, since the freezer was made by people (a "designer"). Since human DNA contains information, and random processes cannot add information, an intelligent designer must have added this information. Most human DNA is "junk" or redundant DNA, but the Intelligent Designer just put that there as a test of faith - just like all the other proof that evolution is true.

Still not convinced? Let us look at things in a more scientific approach. The 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.[9] 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.[10]

Other proofs that ID is an indisputable fact:

  • Evolution simply cannot be true because scientists' minds can grasp it. The TRUE truth can only be understood by God the Intelligent Designer (one can see by the use of this term that there is no Christian dogma here and it is thus scientific).
  • Towering intellects say Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools.
  • Intelligent Design is not stupid, like SD, hence the name.
  • ID can withstand criticism from small-minded science bigots.
  • Modern-day miracles, such as Virgin Mary apparitions on toast.
  • Evolution takes carbon as the definitive reason for life, but the truth is that hodgepodge is.[11]
DarwinLOL

Charles Darwin, as drunk as a monkey's uncle.

Scientific Discoveries

The strongest evidence of ID's validity as a scientific theory is the remarkably innovative and relatively new (about 4,000 years old perhaps) concept of “irreducible complexity”. An "irreducibly complex" trait is one that could not have evolved from a simpler form, but rather must have been created all at once, like this article. An irreducibly complex structure like a protein or an arch is one that proves the existence of an Intelligent Designer. We know that irreducibly complex traits exist, because they are predicted by the theory of Intelligent Design. Therefore, we can conclude that Intelligent Design must be true.

The smartest and most original way to phrase this is: "What good is half a(n) .....". For example if I wanted to prove that it is impossible to create an arch by a slow, bit by bit process I would say: "What good is half an arch? An arch is either complete or it is nonexistent."

Despite the overwhelming support for ID, certain fringe 'scientists' questioned if it was really possible to conclusively determine if a trait is irreducibly complex. In response to this, Behe devised an elegant and scientific protocol for identifying traits as being irreducibly complex or not: he would sit down and ponder, sometimes for minutes at a time, over how a particular trait could have evolved. After failing to think of a precise progression of DNA mutations, he would scientifically conclude that the trait is irreducibly complex. Today, almost every scientist in the world supports the concept of irreducible complexity. [12] If large numbers of “scientists” disagree with Intelligent Design then those other scientists must be unreal scientists because we know that only scientists who agree with us are real scientists[13]. There we’ve proved it.

As compelling as this evidence was, the evolutionerinists still demanded "proof". During a routine walk on the beach, Behe made his most inspired discovery, one that would conclusively prove ID once and for all: he "discovered" a gold watch on the ground. Clearly, the myriad springs of gears in this watch could not have jumped up and formed themselves into a watch, at least not without the aid of alcoholic beverages. Clearly a watchmaker made the watch. Walking further, Behe also found a 757 Boeing airplane in the sand. He asked himself if such a thing result from natural occurrences. Clearly the answer is no, the watchmaker made the plane. Walking still further, Behe discovered a nuclear reactor in the sand. The only conclusion was that the watchmaker had built that too. 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. So who made the watchmaker? The answer is obvious, the watchmaker made the watchmaker. You may try to logically argue against the "watchmaker analogy". However, the portrait of Renee Descartes can be found on the analogy's wikipedia article. Are you smarter than Renee Descartes? I didn't think so.

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. [14]

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 Negros. 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
  • Spontaneous Generation or Biogenesis
  • Numerology or mathematics (for people from Cambridge)
  • Gravity or the Magnet Hypothesis
  • Heliocentric Theory or Geocentric Theory
  • Shamanism or evidence-based medicine
  • Expanding Earth or Plate Tectonics
  • Preformationism or Epigenesis
  • Spontaneous generation or cell theory
  • Reproduction through sex or stork theory.
  • The Big Bang or "heavens and the earth being created" by unspecified means "in the beginning" by "God"
  • Fire as being the transfer of phlogiston or the oxidation of reduced fuel
  • Heat as caloric release or Brownian motion
  • Describe light using the luminiferous aether or quantum mechanics
  • Describe gravity using the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or general relativity
  • Earth carried on a giant turtle or Earth orbits the sun
  • Homeopathy or evidence-based medicine
  • Polytheism or idolatry
  • Crack or Crystal Meth

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, which Behe has kindly donated in Question/Answer format.

Argument 1

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

IDist: 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... Crap, can I start over?

Argument 2

Darwinist: 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?

IDist: The ultimate creator exists without beginning, something that the Universe can't do, because of a fundamental premise which you can read about in my upcoming book ($39.95 at Amazon.com). However, I should warn you, the road to Hell is paved with questions of good intention.

Argument 3

Darwinist: What makes you think the design was intelligent? Really it's not; just look around you. Think of ladies vaginas. Yes you’re thinking, and looking imagining. They’re not very good for making babies are they? You think they are. There’s all those hard pelvic bones. It’s not good to squeeze against them. You think it’s very nice to squeeze up to them. Well the trouble is,… what happens when the babies are born. When the wife was having our first, stop thinking about my wife that way! The baby’s head had to push through all those pelvic bones. And it hurts the mother and the baby as well probably. Any Intelligent Designer must be a sadist. And if the baby’s head is too big to get through the pelvic opening both mother and baby can die. Look please try and stop thinking about ladies vaginas for a moment and try and listen to what I am saying.

How about the ocelot, Jar Jar Binks, llama, koala or the back-to-front human retina? No reasonable person can seriously believe someone intelligent designed these animals. Above all, how can it possibly be intelligent to design men with hairy asses?

IDist: 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."[15] If Dawkins believed in this, you don't need things like Unintelligent Design. See New Intelligent Design and Even Newer Intelligent Design.

Argument 4

Darwinist: 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"?

IDist: 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

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

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, especially if they're from the Oral Roberts has a Big Mouth Party. Also, their rules only apply to the theory of evolution by natural selection and not to any other scientific theory, law, or concept because, panem et circenses, natural selection is so unfair and discriminates against people who are unfit.

Practical education of intelligent design takes from genetic engineering, here the teacher will inject his intelligent genes to the pupils and the average intelligence of the pupils will rise as a function of time.

Copyright Issues

Certain proponents of ID claim that creation happened only 69 years ago and that copyright subsists in all attributes of the Intelligent Design. This notion is advanced by the patentholder—a company called SCO, who also holds the patents for planets Saturn and Pluto and the recipe for water and the patent for sex in the 69 position. 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. APPROVED by the Kansas State Board of Education as a viable alternative to old fashioned chemistry.

Pikachuevolving

Intelligent design has even worked itself into children's games.

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, the creation of the earth and the sun, and even the "scientifically-correct" value of pi. These issues are addressed in the new field of ID called “Intelligent Science”.

Chemistry is a good candidate for destruction by IS. 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 out 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.

Proponents of intelligent design were also able to petition a Pokemon game based on intelligent design, due to the multiple references to evolution in the game. In their new version, entitled Pokemon Mauve, your Pokemon doesn't evolve, but rather, you intelligently design it to improve its stats. How this is different from training it normally has yet to be decided.

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 Generalized Theory of Relativity to the theory that Michael Jackson’s cat is the reincarnation of Elvis Presley. 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.
  • Tell them if they don't believe in ID they probably also don't believe in heaven and if there's no heaven then, well, i mean fucking hell we are all going to die.
  • 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 guys from Depeche Mode are married to women, 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 undisputed fact. [16]
  • 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 un Anglo-Saxone.)
  • Try to sound elucidated. Pleonastic prose to comment on the antimony between ID and evolution suggests that you majored in a relevant field instead of citing from a pamphlet that you found on a table in your church. If one works Latin into their conversation, they sound well versed in donus caput ad equos tactics of debate, and thus seem like someone who is well educated on what they're talking about.
  • Demand that the scientist explain human evolution starting with principles of string theory and quantum mechanics. Become irate if he/she mentions limits of human knowledge ("How do you expect me to believe in evolution if it has obvious gaps in knowledge?") or talks over your head ("How do you expect me to believe in evolution if it is this complicated?").
  • Use a back of an envelope probability calculation. For example, try this one out[17]. A human body consists of about  {5*10^{28}} atoms. The presence of a single atom in a human body ultimately occurred because of either intelligent design (probability of \dfrac{1}{2} ) or evolution (probability of \dfrac{1}{2} ). To reasonable people giving this high of a probability to evolution is unwarranted, but we are talking to close-minded scientists here so we must be generous. If we now consider the probability of all of those atoms coming together due to evolution, the probability would be \dfrac{1}{2^{5*10^{28}}} which is approximately  10^{-15,051,499,783,199,100,000,000,000,000} . This probability is so incredibly small that we can conclude with certainty that evolution couldn't happen. Make sure you walk away from the scientist immediately after using your probability calculation because it's pointless arguing math with someone who doesn't understand it.

Future strategies

Having exhausted attempts at scientific explanations, each one having been ripped to pieces by the scientific community, the ID movement is now considering a new approach - fecundism. The Discovery Institute's new slogan is "If we can't beat 'em, out breed 'em", hence condoms and abortion are now banned among Jesus lovers. Their calculations indicate that if each Christian couple have only four children they will be in power in 50 years. If they have eight children, they may be in power in 20 years. The Allah-worshipers are already doing this.

References

  1. Note: we feel this Designer is more likely to be some guy who wants to fly ridiculous airliners around in it, but our pastor would be unhappy to hear us say that, so we're keeping our lips zipped.
  2. Please also note that the Intelligent Designer does not have to be intelligent, since Freedom isn't Free.
  3. Respect of William Dembski
  4. [1]
  5. F. A. Stone, Dumass, et al. "Analysis of Fictional Anthropomorphic Graduate Students" Journal of Lax Standards #8
  6. Mom, Dad. "Evolution, A Myth Your Teachers Teach You". Bedtime Daily Press
  7. Rev. Lovejoy. "Evolution's Connections To Heathenism". Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Press
  8. Proof of ID in a jar of peanut butter
  9. Smith, Brown, and Jakovski, DDS. "Arguments Based on Material We Don't Understand." Big Book of BS (Simon and Scheister)
  10. Author, Article. "What my friend told me a few months ago."
  11. Behe, Michael. "The Carbon Conspiracy". Megiddo Publishing, 1996.
  12. Real scientists supporting irreducible complexity
  13. For example see, I. M. Fraud, Look, we can't be wrong about this, Current Trends in Denialism
  14. Jewowitz, Jewy. "How to Raise Your IQ By Eating Goyish Scientists Who Know Too Much". New England Journal of Evil, Mar 1995.
  15. Misunderstanding Sarcasm Monthly, Apr 2004, p.226
  16. Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics
  17. [I think my math professor did this, but I was pretty drunk at the time]

External links

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
projects