Intelligent Design Proponents Attempt Experimental Science
Published May 11, 2005
In an attempt that Intelligent Design (ID) theorists' claim will definitively disprove Darwin's theory, ID proponents will attempt to mate humans and chimpanzees to "empirically test Darwin's theory" in the words of one ID theorist. Under the controversial plan, female volunteers will copulate with male chimpanzees. ID proponents predict that none of the women will become impregnated, thus refuting Darwinism.
The project is a joint endeavor hosted by the Intelligent Design Network (IDN) and the Discovery Institute. Both organizations have been highly critical of Darwinian evolution, arguing that observed complexity indicates the existence of a designer. Critics claim that ID is not a scientific theory. This experiment, project leaders claim, "will prove the scientific grounding of Intelligent Design."
"Evolutionary theory is nothing but a lie," said IDN founder William Harris. "They've been saying man came from monkeys for years. Well, we're about to disprove that. If a monkey can't successfully impregnate a human woman, then we're not related to them."
Current evolutionary theory holds that humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor. Scientists also claim we share roughly 98% of our DNA with chimps. As a counter-argument, Harris and colleagues point to preliminary research showing that a young woman's uncle is not a monkey as supportive of their claims.
"We know God made us special," says Reverend Fred Phelps. "We don't need no fag scientists tellin' us otherwise! But if this will shut those idiots up, then let's do it!" Rev. Phelps' statements were met with a resounding "Hallelujah" from the project team.
The project will begin later this year after a three month screening program to choose the female volunteers. According to the plan, the Discovery Institute and IDN will hold a cross-country interview process similar to that of Fox's reality hit American Idol.
- Intelligent Design Proponents Attempt Experimental Science
- Published: May 11, 2005
- Type: Satire
- Section: Sci/Tech
- Filed Under: Culture: Religion, Culture: Humor and Satire, Culture: Education, Sci/Tech: Science
- Writer: a-[e]
- a-[e]'s BC Writer page
- a-[e]'s personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Please tell me this post is some kind of prank or joke, it is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard of and find it totally unbelievable that there are actually enough lunatics in positions of power or influence to make this happen.
Only in the USA, officially the world's weirdest country...
It's under the humor/satire sub-category, Alien...
The link to the "Rev. Phelps" site is truly disturbing in that people like that actually exist!
I've heard these folk on the Howard Stern Show... God almighty, indeed...
His followers came and protested in my town recently. They're completely insane.
Seeing the little kids protested, being taught what to chant by the parents... really really frightening.
Here's a great line from the IDN web page:
We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.
Objectivity that promotes a particular point of view?
Here's another:
ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings.
Of course, in this case, to be "objective," you have to start from the position that God created the earth and its inhabitents. Naturally, with this kind of objectivity, the implications of the findings are welcome: the "science" proves the religious belief.
"If a monkey can't successfully impregnate a human woman, then we're not related to them."
They may be on to something here. After all, these people are the experts at impregnating relatives.
You all think that right wingers would have a hard time rationalizing this stuff?
Here's one of my communities biggest foes reminiscing on public radio about his dalliances with mules. According to him, everybody in Georgia does it!
And no, that link is not satire.
Funny post though, I enjoyed it.
All you have to do is google the talk.origins site, and search "Manpanzee". And have a good laugh. I brought the hypothetical to usenet about 10 years ago, before I was banned from the group under the content moderation clause. known as the Jabfilter.
So I see this blog come up on google news when I type in intelligent design, read the article summary and state loud enough for all of my coworkers to hear 'You got to be shiting me.' people ask whats wrong, i tell them what i'm reading, go to the link and then see it listed under 'satire'. Now I look like a dumbass, thanks a lot! :)
And yes, the Fred Phelps site is truly disturbing. Makes one ashamed to admit they live in the midwest.
Sorry about that, Wes. ;-)
We're working on having Google News better distinguish between our satire and our serious content.
Weren't Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton the result of an earlier version of this experiment? I can't see any other explanation for their odd hair and desire to display aggression through metaphorical chest beating...
Stonehenge - designed. Pyramids - Designed. DNA - random. Intelligent Design or Intelligent Deception. You decide:
link
The problem with satire is it is too similar
to what religious people actually do.
You can't make stuff up to make them look bad
because they will then do something stupider
than what you made up.
I really don't think mating between woman and beast is at all needed.
Don't make a monkey out of yourself.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/29381)
yes, but did they clear it with my good friend rod parsley?