Originally posted at PD.com on October 26, 2005.

Fuck the Discovery Institute

Or

Michael Behe is a Fucktard

Or

Why Intelligent Design is a Crock of Shit

“TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!” That is the battle cry of ID advocates from Florida to Kansas, those oh so friendly religious fanatics who are in the game to fornicate the nations public schools systems with the semen of Creationist “Science” yet again, this time with a more scientific sounding name. Teach the Controversy, huh? Well, I'm here to tell that THERE IS NO FUCKING CONTROVERSY! Intelligent Design is still the same piece of useless shit that it always has been, yet these people insist that their (read as everybody's) children need to be exposed to all “theories” equally. Of course, by theory, they mean a fucking guess written down by some old dead guys 2 millennial ago that is not only a fucking creation myth, but is FUCKING WRONG. Not to mention that its some of the most insipid crap I've ever read. But I digress. In the title I mentioned, among other things, that I would explain why ID is shit, and I intend to do that, now that I have shat some hate.

Reasons why Intelligent Design “Theory” consists of male Bovine fecal matter:

1. ID theory is not a theory: In scientific terms a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Key words here are well-substantiated and tested hypotheses. Now, lets see what one of the leading “scientist” advocates of ID has to say about theories...

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy s definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

The one giving answers is none other than Michael Behe, the forefront Messiah of the ID movement. While he pwns himself almost immediately by equating “Theory” to “Hypothesis” (something no real scientist would do) he then continues to suggest that Astrology and (I have to stifle laughter for this one) ETHER THEORY are both scientific theories. But enough of Behe for now, I'll come back to him later. The greater point is, ID is NOT a scientific theory.

2. There is no evidence for ID: In short, the definition of Intelligent Design “theory” is “since there are gaps in our knowledge of the universe, we conclude that it all came about by a “Intelligent Designer”. Thats it folks, the “theory of Intelligent Design”. In addition to not only being COMPLETLY FUCKING USELESS to science, it provides no evidence for its claim. Oh, fine, I guess I'll use Behe as a whipping post again, if only because its so fucking easy. Behe uses “God of the Gaps” as his main standing point, in addition to something he calls “Irreducible Complexity”. In other words, because the universe is so fucking big, and because biology is so fucking complex, the only way it could have possibly come about is by Intelligent Design. He then Points to, among other things, the Sphinx at Cairo, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and says “They are complex and designed, therefore, biology must be designed as well.” Both “God of the Gaps” and “Irreducible Complexity” use the standard ID logic formula: If A is not fully understood or is often too complex for normal (read: stupid) people to understand, then A != B (B being modern scientific opinion) and A = C (Intelligent Design). What they forget is that crucial of all things in science: EVIDENCE. Without evidence, a hypothesis should not even be considered scientifically. In other words, ID is shit.

3. ID Scientist = Crackpot Fucktard: I've talk quite a bit about Michael Behe already. He used to be a prominent biochemist working at Lehigh University. He still works there, but now he isn't so prominent for biochemistry, rather, he's well known for being an ID advocate. He's even written several books. But his arguments are just repetitions of those I have already stated. Repetition is a favored tactic of ID advocates. Personally, I think its an attempt at hypnotism. ^_^ Lets take a look at some of the other leading “ID scientists”.

William Dembski: Another Crackpot Fucktard. Mathematician and self-ascribed philosopher. Works directly for the Discovery Institute. Favorite quote: “Intelligent Design is an 'Argument from Ignorance...'” I believe that = pwned.

Kevin Hovind: Young Earth Creationist (read: Wannabe Crackpot Fucktard) Calls himself “Dr. Dino”. Quotes the Xtian Tree Corpse directly as science.

And there are many others, all of them Fucktards. The ringleader for this circus? Discovery Institute. As a front for the Republican Party, they pay “respected scientists” well for their bullshit. Except for Behe, of course. They stopped supporting when he committed career suicide at the recent Dover trial. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

4. Its all a mask: Heres the thing ID advocates don't want you to know, the thing that they will deny vehemently if you ask it (that is, unless you get them stirred up enough). This great secret is:

Intelligent Design = Scientific Creationism

Of course, we all know that. ID is just a mask for SC. The original Scientific Creationism was denied access to public education after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial in 1925, and ever since, SC advocates have been trying to weasel their way back into the classroom. The new vehicle is called Intelligent Design, mostly, I believe, because it sounds scientific to the layman. Even YECs are getting in the game, trying to sound like the Crackpot Fucktards.

In conclusion, ID is a crock of shit because it just revamped creationism in disguise, a crude hypothesis without evidence, supported only by Crackpots and fundamentalists. Keep it out of the classroom. Better yet, round up all the crackpots and put them in the asylums. Thats where they really belong anyway.

Fucktards.