Intelligent design theory is quickly gaining acceptance with school boards from Kansas to Pennsylvania. For those desiring to educate themselves on the basics of intelligent design theory I recommend the following simple self-education procedure:
- Pick up a copy of The Design Revolution by William A. Dembski, one of the leading scholars on intelligent design theory.
- Tear out the pages of the book, crumple them up, and force them up the anus until the rectum is completely full. This will cauterize any bleeding caused by step 4 below. Make sure you don't accidentally read any of Dembski's book in the process.
- Remove the radio antenna from a car, boat, boombox, or recreational vehicle. Insert the antenna up the left nostril and rotate the tip in a circular motion until the entire left hemisphere (including the cerebral cortex) is eviscerated. Be sure not to sever the corpus callosum.
- Find an unoccupied restroom with an unpadded wooden toilet seat and place the head between the seat and porcelain rim. (Note: it is important to make sure that the seat is not padded or this just won't work.) Slam the toilet seat downward onto the side of the head repeatedly. This step is complete when you can nod silently through an entire two hour episode of The 700 club.
That's all there is to it. You now understand the other side of the evolution debate. Good luck with your future scientific discoveries.
Ed/Pub:LM
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bob A. Booey
Vicious, but probably necessary, Fifth Dentist.
That is all.
2 - alpha
Most telling is Google's smart bots that added medical, bath and laudry product ads to the center of your "vicious but ... necessary" post.
Or you could find a less violent way -- perhaps studying the sciences and learning to think. That is intelligent design. If there is a design to thinking for oneself.
This time, Bravo, Booey!
3 - Susan
The world is getting weirder by the minute. It's fun to watch.
Jon Stewart is having fun with it even as I type.
4 - john Landon
Darwinians have brooght all this on themselves, by promoting such a sitting duck theory as Darwin's natural selection fraud.
5 - Baronius
Dentist, have you read Dembski?
6 - gonzo marx
he can't hear you, he is still flushing
Excelsior!
7 - Josh Bozeman
really, this hate filled piece of "satire" is genius work. don't listen to dembski, he's not to be taken seriously- [edited] well, the rest is above.
it's this sort of juvenile, hate-filled stupidity that guarantees no one in their right mind will ever listen to anything you say again.
this is categorized under "humor/satire"- someone needs a lesson on humor and satire both, because this is neither. this is just the childish rant [edited]. nothing more, nothing less.
the comment policy says that you want to keep out insults and unfounded accusations. i'm wondering of your vile garbage post is considered an insult. let's see if you're the hypocrite i've no doubt you are. i say keep doing things they way you're doing- it's this reason that the great majority of americans aren't even listening to your arguments anymore, let alone taking you seriously.
8 - gonzo marx
Josh....while you have the absolute Right to not like his humour, you may be deceiving yourself a bit if you believe that anyone with an intellect in the double digits can take ID as anything more than a Metaphysical excercise
it certainly does not fall under the definition of either science, nor theory in that it cannot be either proven, nor disproven via empirical objective data...among other things
all that aside..it's just Humor...you don't like it, don't read it
freedom of choice and all thet
Excelsior!
9 - 5th column
Yeah, yeah, gonzo, tut-tut. The funny thing is, your lack of sympathy for a generation of students being led down the garden path by a bush-league philosopher who's arrogated meanings for design and intelligence and is riding a tradition of american piety and anti-intellectualism for all its worth. You have no moral compass, man.
10 - Bob A. Booey
Susan, honey :)
Why only religion topics for you?
You're too smart to be so obsessed with debates about God or denying God.
Who cares? Comment on other stuff. I like you.
That is all.
11 - Bobmadill
Yes, how productive and mature. Here's an idea - why not find out the science behind intelligent design and then try to engage in some meaningful discussion instead of childish and unimaginative vitriol? Just a thought. Unless of course you buy into the caricature of I.D. as perpetuated on COMEDY shows which consistently make the error of equating I.D. (good science) with pagan creation myths.
Intelligent Design reflects the latest in scientific discovery, whether you like it or not. But feel free to hang on to your civil-war-era Darwinian faith, if you feel so inclined.
12 - The Fifth Dentist
While I appreciate your suggestion, I believe that "meaningful discussion" would be a waste of time on this topic. Mocking and derisive caricature seems much more appropriate to me here.
13 - gonzo marx
Bombadill..I would dearly LOVE to read of any actual science involved in ID.
Everything i have found so far is supposition and hypotheticals, without a single shred of empirical, objective data.
NO model for provable/disprovable experimentation, NO quantifiable or qualifiable axioms. Instead is seems ot be nothing more than attempting to prove negatives by pointing towards misunderstood parts of evolutionary Theory.
so please, point me towards some of the science involved, so far there has been none.
Excelsior!
14 - Bombadill
Excelsior, here's just a starter:
1. Irreducible Complexity of Biological Machines: Like, the cell, or the bacterial flagellum. These molecular machines require all of their constituent parts simultaneously, in order to function. Remove one single component (from one of these impossibly complex nano-machines) and it stops functioning completely. The slow successive and unguided modifications of Darwinism cannot produce a machine like this, not even with all the time in the world. Natural selection would prevent these machines from being built. This is science, not Theology.
2. Information at the core of molecular life (DNA). Yes, information. More complex than a supercomputer. A single strand containing more data than an entire library. Darwin's unguided process does not possess a mechanism to generate information. And every example of information you will find, has a cognizant intelligent entity as it's source. This is science, not Theology.
3. The embarassment of the fossil record and the Cambrian Explosion. Our so-called ancestors amount to fragments of teeth and jaw bones with a femur mixed in here and there. The sum of which could fit in a "small box". This coupled with with the COMPLETE LACK of true transitional forms between species amounts to a pretty devistating blow to the Darwinian faith. Where are the transitions between our alleged fish ancestors and the ape-like ancestors? Where are the TRUE transitions (rather than extinct animal species) which demonstrate our descent from the ape-like ancestors? They should be in abundance. They are nil.
The Cambrian Explosion: several million years ago when all significant animal phyla suddenly appear in the fossil record without having enough time to have evolved. There's not sufficient explanation for this, outside of an Intelligent Designer.
This is science, not theology. Don't let your philosophical and political gurus fool you with their vitriol and rhetoric.
15 - Wes Weeks
Is it necessary to get the entire book up the anus? I'm finding that I can at most fit about 2/3.
Why is the left nostril preferred? Being right handed it would be much easier to use the right to get proper leverage.
I broke the toilet seat before I could get through a full hour of the 700 club and only nod through about 45 minutes. Can I repeat this step after getting a new seat?
But thanks to your suggestions, I must admit I am finally starting to see Dembski's point of view!
ignorantdesign.com
16 - Wes Weeks
Apparently Bombadill was able to complete the entire process succesfully.
17 - gonzo marx
to Bombadill,
thank you for the attempt, let's have a look , shall we?
1) supposition..you have NOT shown any proof or given any kind of experimental model to disprove either evolution's theory or put forward the ID contention...all you have done is shown an unsubstantiated statement
*The slow successive and unguided modifications of Darwinism cannot produce a machine like this, not even with all the time in the world. Natural selection would prevent these machines from being built. This is science, not Theology.*
yet you provide no scientific evidence to back up this claim, you merely state that "it cannot be"...show your Proof, or at least the empirical objective data to substantiate the position...
2)again, unsubstantiated claim...
*And every example of information you will find, has a cognizant intelligent entity as it's source. This is science, not Theology.*
i never stated that i thought ID was theology..rather i clearly stated it IS metaphysics..and still NOT science...perhaps you shoudl check your definitions?
3)you state...
*There's not sufficient explanation for this, outside of an Intelligent Designer.*
again..where is your Proof? i do agree that evolutionary theory does have sections that are not fully explained, which is why it is a Theory by definition and not a "fact", "law" or "axiom"
Bombadill sez..
*This is science, not theology.*
you keep repeating this ...allow me to help
American Heritage dictionary defines science as..."The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. "
do note the "experimental investigation" part...
metaphysics is defined as..."A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. "
evolution = science
ID = metaphysics
by definition...
Bombadill sez..
*Don't let your philosophical and political gurus fool you with their vitriol and rhetoric.*
i would ask that you examine your words here, and apply them yourself...i am not "fooled" by anyone, but rather attempt to examine issues such as these as objectively as possible...
the first step it to accurately define the Terms used...science does...ID proponents do not
nuff said?
Excelsior!
18 - Hal Jordan
Typical evolutionist crap. Evolution is so stupid it requires more faith to be believed upon. Faith that the minute particles of this world could somehow rearrange by themselves into your eye and brain--so that future scientists could reverse-engineer them. The reason why we get maniacal outrage from evolutionists is because their FAITH in this evolution religion of theirs is now being challenged by modern science and modern tools that know that Darwin's supposed basic and simple building blocks of nature are nothing but basic and simple. In fact, the cell is irreducibly complex and is as complicated as a small city, with its own power, maintenance, reproduction departments.
But of course, you here are free to stick to your toilet scenarios.
19 - The Fifth Dentist
In all seriousness, meaningful scientific debate must take place among scientists in the field in peer- reviewed journals. Public schools should teach mainstream theories based on the expert consesus -- whatever that is at the time. Even if this crapola did not have a religious basis (and I think that's a ludicrous claim) you cannot seriously argue that this is mainstream science given the 999:1 ratio of scientists who think this is not just wrong but outrageous. You, I, and the Kansas school board are simply not qualified based on reading one or two books to argue this directly. (Please accept my apologies if you are in fact a PhD biologist working in this field.) We have to rely on the experts. If your arguments are correct then eventually they will become the mainstream opinion among scientists. That's how science works. But honestly this theory isn't even close and I'd bet my life that it never will be. Incidentally, do you see many school boards rejecting mainstream scientific thought based on theories proposed by a small minority of fringe "scientists" where the domain doesn't bridge territory also covered by religion (e.g, plate techtonics)? I think not.
20 - gonzo marx
i disagree Hal...scientific theory involves many things...but far less Faith is required than that of metaphysical concepts such as ID
you need to have "faith" in the Designer first...without ANY kind of empirical evidence, after all that is what "faith" is, by definition..
science , on the other hand..has such empirical, repeatable, observable , and objective data...and a Theory is ever changing to fit new Facts and quantifiable data as it is substantiated
if a Theory can be proven incorrect by the scientific method, the new Theory replaces it...as has been shown over and over again in the course of history
part of hte problem with ID, is that iot DOES raise some good Questions, but offers no scientific data to explain or replace it...merely "because someone did it" without any evidence, and then offers no experimental process to determine tha accuracy of such faith based assertations
look above for the definitions of science and metaphysics...then we can talk further...
Excelsior!
21 - Bombadill
gonzo...
Aside from the fact that you were unable to respond to the very specific and very scientific examples I gave you in support of Intelligent Design (and those were just a few), I will humor you with another response...
There is nothing metaphysical about the clear and concrete observations of science. And what science actually observes is what I clearly demonstrated in my previous post. Namely, that biological systems possess irreducible complexity which Darwinism does not have a mechanism to produce. ID holds that certain features are not reducible to mechanisms alone, and must be an intelligent agent's intervention. It simply observes design in biological systems. It does not posit who or what that designer is. So, it does not make theological claims. It simply observes design and information(which Darwinism cannot produce)in nature. There is nothing unscientific about that. And it certainly is falsifiable. One can enter a lab and remove a component from the Bacteria flagellum and observe how it completely ceases to work. One can do the same with the blood clotting mechanism as well as the cell. And one can demonstrate that Darwinism cannot build one of these machines. In contrast, what science DOES NOT observe is the slow successive mutations of biological systems such that information is gained and ultimately you get goo-to-you-via-the-zoo. This is fantasy and more and more scientists are realizing it. Which is why the I.D. movement will continue to grow.
The ridicule you find on sites like these, only contribute to the growth of the I.D. movement, ultimately. People are able to see thru these attempts vitriol driven censorship. People like on this site are unable to deal with the irrefutible science behind I.D.. Let go of your steamboat-era science and embrace what it new science actually observes.
22 - gonzo marx
you refuse to understand that you have not "discovered" anything in your examination of evolutionary Theory other than areas which have yet to be accurately explained within the rigors of the scientific methodology
you are also attempting to attribute "vitriol" to my responses, when any obeserver can clearly see that such is not the case...
as to my response involving the points you raise..i DID respond to each, i am no scientist of evolutionary theory, what i did was show that your statements were merely that. they ARE good observations, but the suppositions you put forward for explanation are far frm being "scientific" as per definition of the terms...which i also provided
and that is the nut of it...as i have shown, any ID proponents and advocates i have conversed with all have the same difficulty..
definition of terms
Excelsior!
23 - DrPat
gonzo, dear, I think your use of "metaphysical" confused the ID proponent -- Bombadil appears to have heard "mystical" instead.
The arguments for ID stated in Comment 14 are straight out of Creationism doctrine. So much for ID not being that religion-based non-science.
So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.
It is easy to get VERY complicated systems containing a tremendous amount of information starting from very simple, low information systems... Complexity does not imply design. Recursion or nonlinearity work quite well. And the world is recursive and very non-linear.
24 - The Fifth Dentist
Those who reject the scientific method don't deserve to experience the benefits of it. By all rights, when such a person goes to the doctor he should not be treated with modern antibiotics. Instead, he should have leeches attached to his nutsack and receive a kerosene enema. Unfortunately, the world isn't entirely fair and such people continue to receive the benefits of science while still believing in their dumbass astrology. While the individual proceeds blissfully unscathed by his assault on science, society isn't fairing as well.
25 - Bombadill
DrPat,
The arguments are straight out of current scientific observation. They are USED by creationists. This does not call into question their legitimacy. Again, it's what science observes.
The Cambrian explostion is scientific and poses a serious problem for Darwinism -
Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Biological Complexity
Transitional fossils - There are no true transitions between genomes. Only microevolutionary adaptaions WITHIN a genome (and information is never gained). Learn - Alleged Transitional forms
The fossil record has NEVER produced a specimen that truly represents something in between genomes. Again, where are the transitions between reptiles and ape, etc�?
On the origin of complexity and the inability of low information systems to self organize into irreducibly complex machines. - Complexity / Irreducible Complexity.pdf