Written by IainB

Monday, 11 April 2011

image for Intelligent Design handbook Hunted to extinction by humans in 8000BC

There are a number of points to remember when arguing the case for Intelligent Design. In the most cases you will be discussing ID with non-scientists. When discussing ID with anybody with even a rudimentary scientific background, remember that you will not be able to convince them that they are incorrect they are too indoctrinated by three hundred years of scientific advances. Instead remember that you are attempting to get the message across to anybody else reading or listening to the discussion.

Before we get to the more advanced elements of the handbook, remember this important point: Always have the last word in any discussion (never refer to it as an argument). Scientists will quite often give you up as a lost cause; others watching and listening will see this as failure to provide a convincing argument, and believe you must therefore be right.

1. Use the word 'theory' as often as possible. Scientists understand the term to mean 'something for which there is evidence'. Non-scientists understand the term to mean 'idea'. This is a very good way of destroying any counter-argument.

2. Start with picking and choosing any scientific theory you like that will back up ID, ignore any others. They're obviously wrong. The laws of thermodynamics are good, unless you are talking with somebody who knows the laws of thermodynamics. The second law states that everything tends towards disorder; this is strong proof that self assembly cannot possibly be true as it blatantly disregards this rule. If the person you are talking to mentions that the second law is to do with the lowest energy point of a system, and as such a combination of chemicals can have a lower, more stable energy point, they understand the laws of thermodynamics and it is important to stop using science in your discussion.

3. Dismiss any scientific evidence as 'assumptions'. If the basic scientific idea cannot be disregarded as such directly, then dismiss the tools used to arrive at the answer as requiring calibration, which is an assumption. Most scientists will give up at this point, as they will believe you don't know what you're talking about. If they do continue, and point out that the calibration uses standard tests that have many strands of evidence, dismiss it all as assumption, and leave it as that, or use Circular Logic (see below).

4. Any self supporting evidence can be dismissed as 'circular logic'. Bear in mind that non-scientists will understand this to mean that scientists have a theory and support it with data that supports the theory. Scientists will probably laugh at you, and try and point out that it can hardly be circular logic when several different strands of evidence all point to the same conclusion. They are all circular logic: even when scientists have different agendas and still come to the same conclusion. None of them want to admit that evolution is wrong, especially if their work has nothing to do with evolution.

5. Should anybody bring in mathematical proofs that support the basic idea of a particular scientific theory, point out that mathematics was created by humans to describe phenomena we can see, and is inherently flawed. Although this can be used to dismiss 99.9% of mathematics, feel free to bring in any math that proves ID, such as the work by Pasteur 150 years ago. If it is mentioned that Pasteur was merely trying to reconcile what he was seeing with his devout belief in a god, point out that this didn't make him wrong.

5. The Earth is only 10,000 years old. Any evidence raised to the contrary is blatantly wrong. Ignore any mention of ice or sediment cores and tree ring data that goes back further than this, as this 'assumption' (see point 3). Who knows how ice and sediment was laid down a century ago? Isotope measurement, observation of main sequence stars, geological features, fossils, tectonic plate activity, cosmic ray measurements can either be dismissed as based on assumptions (point 2), circular logic (point 3) or lacking convincing proof.

6. Should it be pointed out that a scientific idea require proof, predictions and testability, ask them for those three things from evolution by natural selection. Any proofs or predictions are circular logic, any evidence or tests are based on assumptions. Many people will raise the point that there have been no published articles concerning ID in any scientific journal. This is because the journals do not wish to publish anything that contradicts their cherished evolution. It is a conspiracy. There once was one article published about ID (although it was retracted, this is because the editor was told to do this by his evolution supporting superiors, adding further weight to the conspiracy theory). There have been plenty of books published on the subject. And newspaper articles.

7. Dinosaurs were hunted to extinction by humans. As were the other ninety five percent of species that have ever lived that are now merely records in the fossil record. Dating of fossils requires assumptions and calibration of the dating techniques (see point 2). There is no mention of any of these animals in the bible in the same way there is no mention of kangaroos.

8. 10,000 years is insufficient time for any theories of the origin of life to begin. This means that you can easily sidestep any proposed theories on the origins of life, as they all require too much time. It is also insufficient time for anything as complicated as the eye to evolve.

9. Any mention of the number of scientists that have used evolution, dating techniques, chemical analysis, physics, chemistry and biology to build the world we see, point out that during the middle ages, it was believed the world was flat, and the sun went around it, which was wrong, but didn't stop the advancing of science. Anybody who points out that it was only the Christian church that believed these things, and that the Greeks, Norse, Mayans, Egyptians, Babylonians, Muslims and Polynesians all knew the world was round and orbited the sun should be reminded them that science is about challenging the basics, and just because there is a dominant theory, it doesn't make it right. It is still just a theory.

10. Should at any point, it become clear that you are talking to Richard Dawkins, do not continue the conversation. Concede, run away and hide. We don't want to lose any more adherents. The same is true, should it become apparent that everybody in the group has a high-school education, as they have already been indoctrinated by science. Also, there is no point continuing the discussion should the scientist work for the Vatican. They might bring God into the discussion, and you'll be screwed then, as we don't like to mention God, it makes us look religious. Which we are, but others must not see us that way.

It is important to spread the message of Intelligent Design. Our founder, Tom Monaghan (who also founded Domino's Pizza, one of the most successful Pizza chains ever), is relying on individuals like you to sway public opinion in our favour. Tom doesn't like the way that evolution is taught as a science in schools despite the sheer weight of millions of strands of evidence supporting it. It made two of his daughters choose a life of secularity instead of becoming celibate nuns. The hussies.

The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.

If you fancy trying your hand at comedy spoof news writing, click here to join!
More by this writer
View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story

Go to top
35 readers are online right now!
Globey, The Spoof's mascot

We use cookies to give you the best experience, this includes cookies from third party websites and advertisers.

Continue ? Find out more