Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theyeti · 12-26-2002, 06:50 PM

This is a bit of humor that I thought would be better here because it also incorporates some serious criticisms of the ID movement. I got the idea to make this list after reading this satire: Libertarianism in one lesson. Any additions or suggestions welcome. Enjoy!

IDists...

On Intelligent Design...

ID is whatever we say it is, and we don�t agree.
Greater and greater numbers of scientists are joining the ID movement, which is why we keep referring to the same three year after year.
ID is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we�re asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution".
We're not creationists, except for those of us who are, but the rest of us won't confirm that we're not. But if you call us creationists, we'll complain to no end.
The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we�ve convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these.
ID is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community. Just last year, over 100 scientists signed a statement which does not support ID. The opinions of tens of thousands of other scientists don�t count.
ID is a program for research into the science of design, nothing more. Part of our research plans are to produce coloring books for preschoolers, and to make ourselves more likeable at parties.
ID is a scientific theory for detecting purpose and teleology in nature. But don�t ask us what that purpose is, because that�s a religious question that�s separate from ID.
The Designer could be anything from God to a space alien. But the Raelins, who believe it was a space alien, are being illogical.

On Darwinism...

Darwinists can�t explain the evolution of life in every single detail, therefore it�s wrong. But don�t ask IDists to explain these things, because that�s not the kind of theory ID is.
Mainstream scientists dare not disagree with the monolithic block that is Darwinian orthodoxy. However, here are a number of mainstream scientists who disagree with each other on some issues, which means that they can�t agree on anything, so theory is crumbling.
Darwinists are driven by religious and ideological motivations. But since we�ve removed the picture of God and the phrase "Cultural Renewal" from our website, everyone knows this isn�t true of us.
Absolutely everything wrong in society is caused by dogmatic Darwinian atheistic materialists. Including stereotyping, demonizing, and scapegoating.
Darwinists are responsible for both socialism and lassie-fair capitalism. Both racism and liberalism. Both feminism and sexism. Both animal research and the animal rights movement. And Commie-Nazism.

On philosophy...

Philosophers cannot agree on exactly where the line between science and non-science lies. Therefore, anything can be considered science if we say so.
If a living system looks well designed, it's evidence for ID. If it looks poorly designed, that's just because we have no way of knowing what constitutes good and bad design.
Afterall, we can't tell that it's bad design because we have no way of knowing what the Designer really intends. But we do know that ID will revolutionize culture, society, and law, according to what the Designer intends.
Methodological naturalism is an unfair rule that keeps us from considering supernatural explanations. But this would mean that detectives couldn't consider an intelligent agent in a person's death, because as we all know, murderers are supernatural.
A good scientific theory like ID should be vauge and ambiguous, and refuse to propose any specific details about mechanism or historical narrative. Someone "designed" something somewhere at some point in time somehow is a perfectly good explanation.
The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate.

On the Evidence...

Since the peppered moth case has been proven problematic, natural selection is disproven. The other 1,582 studies of natural selection in the wild, as well as the numerous laboratory studies, don�t count.
And, peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks. The actual datasets of moths found in natural positions in the wild, off but also on trunks, are irrelevant because researchers have captured thousands of moths over the years in their moth traps and not once has a moth in a trap been found on a tree trunk.
Since moths don't rest on tree trunks but instead higher up in the branches, this means that birds can't get to them, because there is a magic barrier preventing birds from visiting tree branches.
As demonstrated above, moths don't rest on tree trunks, which means that the photographs showing the contrasting conspicuousness of moths on tree trunks found in textbooks are FRAUDS, FRAUDS, FRAUDS. All the other staged animal photos in textbooks are however unobjectionable.
The fact that more inclusive groupings, such as phyla, appeared before more specific groupings, such as genera, is evidence against evolution. Likewise, the fact that Europeans first appeared before Tony Blaire is evidence against shared human ancestry.
Evolution can't produce novel information, because any change to a protein that increases substrate specificity reduces the reactivity of the protein with other compounds, which is a loss of information. Similarly, any change which increases the enzyme's generality is a loss of information because the enzyme has lost some specificity.
Life could not come about by natural means because it has Specified Complexity. Specified Complexity means something that cannot come about by natural means, therefore life must exhibit Specified Complexity.
It was very nice of our loving Designer to design an immune system to protect us from the deadly diseases he designed.
Irreducibly Complex structures require multiple parts. Therefore they can�t evolve. If someone demonstrates how a structure that requires multiple parts could have evolved, that just means that it wasn�t Irreducibly Complex.
IC structures must be molecular systems. Except mousetraps.
"Indirect" pathways are wildly unlikely and as hard to find as leprechauns, and are therefore only a "bare" possibility but not a realistic one and can be safely disregarded, despite the detailed attention paid to them by every major biologist from Darwin to Dawkins.
The ID hypothesis, on the other hand, bears no resemblance to leprechauns.

theyeti

Bubba · 12-26-2002, 07:19 PM

This is really a nice piece of thinking and I enjoyed it very much.

THANKS!

Bubba

Principia · 12-26-2002, 07:39 PM

On ID:

-- Research? Check out these essays on the websites that our anonymous web supporters have put up. The remaining research is left as exercises for the readers.

-- Whenever we get a rejection letter from an academic journal, we just give up. There's no reason to fight the academic censorship.

-- We get millions from generous Fundamentalists every year, but we are so busy we typically lose track of how we spent it all. Materialism sucks. By the by, won't you lend us a few bucks?

-- Research? Please help us Brainstorm. Otherwise, you are not invited to play with us at our web forums and conferences.

-- To falsify ID, you have to show that what God did makes no sense. But being God, He is the only One to judge what makes sense or not.

-- Don't defend science with arguments from authority. After all, any sound argument is incomplete without Christ.

-- We have Berlinski and Raelians in our camp. So don't stereotype us.

-- One hundred scientists signed a petition saying that they are skeptical of evolution. Therefore, ID must be taught in public schools.

Silent Dave · 12-26-2002, 08:29 PM

Although Jim Huben is demonstrably full of shit, I love ID in one lesson. Great job! Spread it far and wide!

Dave

RufusAtticus · 12-26-2002, 09:46 PM

Great post theyeti. If we ever implement a "best of" E/C I'm sure it will be there.

beoba · 12-27-2002, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti
lassie-fair

*shudder

Awesome post though.

scigirl · 12-27-2002, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Darwinists can�t explain the evolution of life in every single detail, therefore it�s wrong. But don�t ask IDists to explain these things, because that�s not the kind of theory ID is.

Ha ha! Thanks theyeti, that was funny.

scigirl

S2Focus · 12-27-2002, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia
On ID:

.....

-- Whenever we get a rejection letter from an academic journal, we just give up. There's no reason to fight the academic censorship.

.....

Hmmmm..... I think you may be giving ID "researchers" a bit too much credit here. After all, don't you have to *submit* a paper to an academic journal before you get a rejection letter?

Has anyone here ever seen a copy of an ID paper that had actually been submitted to -- and then rejected by -- a reputable scientific journal (along with the rejection notice)? Or did the Evil God-Hating Atheistic Materialistic Science Censorship Worldwide Conspiracy Task Force direct all scientific journals to send out pre-emptive rejection letters to ID "researchers"?

Quote:

......

-- One hundred scientists signed a petition saying that they are skeptical of evolution. Therefore, ID must be taught in public schools.

.....

Actually, it's even siller than that: those one hundred scientists really signed a petition saying that they were skeptical of evolution by purely Darwinian mechanisms, not that they were necessarily skeptical of evolution itself.

The DI spinmeisters drafted the petition in such a way as to exploit disagreements within the scientific community regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution in order to create a misleading picture of the scientific status of the modern theory of evolution.

Of course, that is all completely lost on the DI's intended audience...

Principia · 12-27-2002, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Hmmmm..... I think you may be giving ID "researchers" a bit too much credit here. After all, don't you have to *submit* a paper to an academic journal before you get a rejection letter?

You know, I've always wondered about that. Besides Behe one documented case of being rejected, I don't know of any others. It sounds like they just stopped submitting altogether, and recycle the censorship rhetoric as an excuse. In any case, they have PCID and Origins and Design. So I'm not sure what they're complaining about.

On ID:
-- We have more ID scientists than the Iraqi have nuclear scientists. But we don't support any terrorism, whether academic or non-academic.

-- Thanks to the Raelians, we now have a new weapon in the struggle for the cutural renewal and the popular acceptance of ID: cloning.

-- Gee, our funding has just dried up. Time to write another book.

-- Research? Why,just look at all the ID-friendly articles that are already in the literature. I just need a glass of scotch, and some good quality time to myself to reinterpret the results.

-- I see... you laugh at what we have to say. Yoohoo, Bar Bouncer... Show him the Wedge please.

-- If God exists, and if He had a hand in guiding design, and if the design produced subtle clues, and if some of the clues survived over time, aren't the materialist atheists just a bit worried that they would miss the false negatives?

-- The genetic programming that exists within every living organism is optimal and far more advanced than any code that Microsoft churns out.

-- Aha. Gotcha. Did you just use "code" and "programming" and "optimal" in the same sentence?

-- Isaac Newton of Information Theory: "If I have been able to last this long at Baylor, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of Fundamentalists."

Silent Dave · 12-27-2002, 04:36 PM

Might I suggest we copy this thread over to the humor forum?

Dave

12-26-2002, 06:50 PM	#1
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	IDism in one lesson. This is a bit of humor that I thought would be better here because it also incorporates some serious criticisms of the ID movement. I got the idea to make this list after reading this satire: Libertarianism in one lesson. Any additions or suggestions welcome. Enjoy! IDists... On Intelligent Design... ID is whatever we say it is, and we don�t agree. Greater and greater numbers of scientists are joining the ID movement, which is why we keep referring to the same three year after year. ID is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we�re asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution". We're not creationists, except for those of us who are, but the rest of us won't confirm that we're not. But if you call us creationists, we'll complain to no end. The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we�ve convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. ID is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community. Just last year, over 100 scientists signed a statement which does not support ID. The opinions of tens of thousands of other scientists don�t count. ID is a program for research into the science of design, nothing more. Part of our research plans are to produce coloring books for preschoolers, and to make ourselves more likeable at parties. ID is a scientific theory for detecting purpose and teleology in nature. But don�t ask us what that purpose is, because that�s a religious question that�s separate from ID. The Designer could be anything from God to a space alien. But the Raelins, who believe it was a space alien, are being illogical. On Darwinism... Darwinists can�t explain the evolution of life in every single detail, therefore it�s wrong. But don�t ask IDists to explain these things, because that�s not the kind of theory ID is. Mainstream scientists dare not disagree with the monolithic block that is Darwinian orthodoxy. However, here are a number of mainstream scientists who disagree with each other on some issues, which means that they can�t agree on anything, so theory is crumbling. Darwinists are driven by religious and ideological motivations. But since we�ve removed the picture of God and the phrase "Cultural Renewal" from our website, everyone knows this isn�t true of us. Absolutely everything wrong in society is caused by dogmatic Darwinian atheistic materialists. Including stereotyping, demonizing, and scapegoating. Darwinists are responsible for both socialism and lassie-fair capitalism. Both racism and liberalism. Both feminism and sexism. Both animal research and the animal rights movement. And Commie-Nazism. On philosophy... Philosophers cannot agree on exactly where the line between science and non-science lies. Therefore, anything can be considered science if we say so. If a living system looks well designed, it's evidence for ID. If it looks poorly designed, that's just because we have no way of knowing what constitutes good and bad design. Afterall, we can't tell that it's bad design because we have no way of knowing what the Designer really intends. But we do know that ID will revolutionize culture, society, and law, according to what the Designer intends. Methodological naturalism is an unfair rule that keeps us from considering supernatural explanations. But this would mean that detectives couldn't consider an intelligent agent in a person's death, because as we all know, murderers are supernatural. A good scientific theory like ID should be vauge and ambiguous, and refuse to propose any specific details about mechanism or historical narrative. Someone "designed" something somewhere at some point in time somehow is a perfectly good explanation. The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate. On the Evidence... Since the peppered moth case has been proven problematic, natural selection is disproven. The other 1,582 studies of natural selection in the wild, as well as the numerous laboratory studies, don�t count. And, peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks. The actual datasets of moths found in natural positions in the wild, off but also on trunks, are irrelevant because researchers have captured thousands of moths over the years in their moth traps and not once has a moth in a trap been found on a tree trunk. Since moths don't rest on tree trunks but instead higher up in the branches, this means that birds can't get to them, because there is a magic barrier preventing birds from visiting tree branches. As demonstrated above, moths don't rest on tree trunks, which means that the photographs showing the contrasting conspicuousness of moths on tree trunks found in textbooks are FRAUDS, FRAUDS, FRAUDS. All the other staged animal photos in textbooks are however unobjectionable. The fact that more inclusive groupings, such as phyla, appeared before more specific groupings, such as genera, is evidence against evolution. Likewise, the fact that Europeans first appeared before Tony Blaire is evidence against shared human ancestry. Evolution can't produce novel information, because any change to a protein that increases substrate specificity reduces the reactivity of the protein with other compounds, which is a loss of information. Similarly, any change which increases the enzyme's generality is a loss of information because the enzyme has lost some specificity. Life could not come about by natural means because it has Specified Complexity. Specified Complexity means something that cannot come about by natural means, therefore life must exhibit Specified Complexity. It was very nice of our loving Designer to design an immune system to protect us from the deadly diseases he designed. Irreducibly Complex structures require multiple parts. Therefore they can�t evolve. If someone demonstrates how a structure that requires multiple parts could have evolved, that just means that it wasn�t Irreducibly Complex. IC structures must be molecular systems. Except mousetraps. "Indirect" pathways are wildly unlikely and as hard to find as leprechauns, and are therefore only a "bare" possibility but not a realistic one and can be safely disregarded, despite the detailed attention paid to them by every major biologist from Darwin to Dawkins. The ID hypothesis, on the other hand, bears no resemblance to leprechauns. theyeti

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-26-2002, 07:19 PM	#2
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	This is really a nice piece of thinking and I enjoyed it very much. THANKS! Bubba

12-26-2002, 07:39 PM	#3
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	On ID: -- Research? Check out these essays on the websites that our anonymous web supporters have put up. The remaining research is left as exercises for the readers. -- Whenever we get a rejection letter from an academic journal, we just give up. There's no reason to fight the academic censorship. -- We get millions from generous Fundamentalists every year, but we are so busy we typically lose track of how we spent it all. Materialism sucks. By the by, won't you lend us a few bucks? -- Research? Please help us Brainstorm. Otherwise, you are not invited to play with us at our web forums and conferences. -- To falsify ID, you have to show that what God did makes no sense. But being God, He is the only One to judge what makes sense or not. -- Don't defend science with arguments from authority. After all, any sound argument is incomplete without Christ. -- We have Berlinski and Raelians in our camp. So don't stereotype us. -- One hundred scientists signed a petition saying that they are skeptical of evolution. Therefore, ID must be taught in public schools.

12-26-2002, 08:29 PM	#4
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Although Jim Huben is demonstrably full of shit, I love ID in one lesson. Great job! Spread it far and wide! Dave

12-26-2002, 09:46 PM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Great post theyeti. If we ever implement a "best of" E/C I'm sure it will be there.

12-27-2002, 04:36 PM	#10
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Might I suggest we copy this thread over to the humor forum? Dave

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.