Intelligent Design

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 18:32, February 7, 2007 by (talk)

Jump to: navigation, search
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.
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. (Even though the main intelligent designerists say it is the Christian god in an accidentally leaked, top-secret document called the “Door Stop Strategy” [1], but don't tell anyone.)

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. 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.

Some biologists, like the highly religious Ken G. Miller of Shit University [3], Rhode Island, claim the since Dr. D. is a mathematician he shouldn’t claim to be a major authority on biology. This is typical display of jealousy which is typical of real scientists. Some of Ken’s grad students like Brian Griffin are actually animals rather than humans (Brian is actually a dog). 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:

  • Evolution isn’t mentioned in the bible
  • My parents told me that evolution is wrong
  • The people at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary say it’s wrong too
  • 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 tm:

  • 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.

ID itself

ID is a rational reconstruction of how we detect design in common life. Remember that "There Is No Such Thing As A False Positive".

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. 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 the clumsy and cumbersome process of natural selection could create a genome with so much redundant data.

If you think that’s bad, just wait until you here 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 a human's. 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 layout 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.

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! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!

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 theory 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 God's the unknown Creator's punishment for immorality.

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 like George W. Bush say Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. So there!
  • Intelligent Design is not quite as stupid as SD
  • ID can withstand criticism from small-minded science bigots.
  • Modern day miracles and God'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.
  • 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
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 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. [4]

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?"

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.

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 niggers. A third group typically claims that “Proof is for communists. You're not a communist, are you?"

Of course you're not.

Teach the fallacy

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
  • Earth centered universe or the big bang
  • Fire as oxidation of reduced fuel or transfer of phlogiston
  • Heat as Brownian motion or calorique release
  • Describe light using quantum mechanics or the luminiferous aether
  • Describe gravity using general relativity or the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

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:

Argument 1

Reporter: 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?

Argument 2

Reporter: 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?

Behe: You're going to go to Hell!

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 intelligent designed these 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.

In fact Dawkins produced a sequel to "Tumbling Down Mount Improbable" called "The View While Tumbing Down Mount Improbable" in which he explains why the Intelligent Design 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

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?

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!

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 ideas that are not scientific. Instead, students are forced to hear only one side of the issue in their science classes: the factual one.

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.

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

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 (an act came to pass in the USA, 6 years prior to the removal of creationism from American classrooms, that requires the teaching of “flat-earth science”[5]) 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)

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 philosophers 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.

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, that 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 philosophers stone could give one eternal life came up more than a millennia than did soccer, television and cigarettes; but we’ll just ignore that – crap is a mainstay of relativism, and when in Rome….)

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 A-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.
  • 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: 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-...thats 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. [6] 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 embarassing animals (even if drunk human rock-stars or intern-hungry televanglists 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.)


  1. The designer is the Christian god
  2. Respect of William Demski
  3. info on Shit University, Rhode Island
  4. Real scientists supporting irreducible complexity
  5. Flat earth science
  6. Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

See Also

Good Small Nominated Article
This article has been nominated for highlighting on the front page—you can vote for it or nominate your favourite articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH. Please see this article's entry.
Personal tools
In other languages