Intelligent Design Proponents Attempt Experimental Science

Author: a-[e]Published: May 11, 2005 at 7:51 pm 20 comments

ID Science 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.

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found
  • No image found
  • No image found

Article comments

  • 1 - copygodd

    May 12, 2005 at 12:19 am

    yes, but did they clear it with my good friend rod parsley?

  • 2 - alienboy

    May 12, 2005 at 3:40 am

    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...

  • 3 - bhw

    May 12, 2005 at 3:42 am

    alienboy, note the Humor/Satire subcategory above.

  • 4 - Eric Berlin

    May 12, 2005 at 3:45 am

    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...

  • 5 - a-[e]

    May 12, 2005 at 3:52 am

    His followers came and protested in my town recently. They're completely insane.

  • 6 - Eric Berlin

    May 12, 2005 at 3:58 am

    Seeing the little kids protested, being taught what to chant by the parents... really really frightening.

  • 7 - bhw

    May 12, 2005 at 4:01 am

    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.

  • 8 - Michael

    May 12, 2005 at 4:22 am

    "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.

  • 9 - Eric Berlin

    May 12, 2005 at 4:25 am

    Oh snap...

  • 10 - Steve S

    May 12, 2005 at 4:28 am

    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.

  • 11 - Jabriol

    May 12, 2005 at 10:30 am

    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.

  • 12 - Wes Weeks

    May 12, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    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.

  • 13 - bhw

    May 12, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    Sorry about that, Wes. ;-)

    We're working on having Google News better distinguish between our satire and our serious content.

  • 14 - boldergeizd

    May 12, 2005 at 10:17 pm

    Growing Mowgli

    (wow, fantastic band name)

  • 15 - Big Time Patriot

    May 13, 2005 at 12:47 am

    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...

  • 16 - Robert

    Sep 30, 2005 at 5:59 pm

    Stonehenge - designed. Pyramids - Designed. DNA - random. Intelligent Design or Intelligent Deception. You decide:
    link

  • 17 - unintelligent designer

    Nov 15, 2005 at 6:09 pm

    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.

  • 18 - Stuart

    Dec 21, 2005 at 7:58 pm

    I really don't think mating between woman and beast is at all needed.

    Don't make a monkey out of yourself.

  • 19 - jesús zamora

    Nov 15, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    A criticism of ID from philosophy of science. Basically: ID confound what amounts to be a scientific explanation

  • 20 - AudioDog

    Aug 30, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    The awful thing is I can see this happening.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 22, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs