## FANDOM

32,397 Pages

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.
For those without comedic tastes, the so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article very remotely related to 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 it 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.

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,) which 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

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

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]

## 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.

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

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?

## 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]