Monday, August 29, 2005

Intelligent Design theory sends shudders through “science” community

PARODY (news) – The growing popularity of the intelligent design theory among scientists in all fields has exposed a critical weakness within the “scientific” community at large. Intelligent Design is the theory that asserts all of nature is just too complex and too well ordered to be the result of chance. As science has moved forward in recent years each subsequent discovery has brought forth evidence which many scientists believe supports the notion of a creator. Opponents have claimed that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a ruse designed to get Creationism into America’s schools via the backdoor. However, many supporters of the Intelligent Design theory do not claim to know about the nature of a creator (whether it is, for example, the God of the Bible), only that scientific evidence supports the idea that some superior being probably had a hand in the creation of our world.

Those opposed to the theory have been shrill in their opposition and refuse to even address the evidence supporting the theory or debate those who see it’s validity. They have violated one of the prime tenets of the scientific method, that being to first examine all of the available evidence and THEN draw a conclusion. Instead, opponents of intelligent design have rejected it based upon a predetermined conclusion (their support of evolution). And yet they don’t seem to recognize the irony.

“Since we know that man evolved over the course of millions and millions of years we can proceed with confidence in our study of science by rejecting evidence to the contrary as anomalies and by spending our valuable time digging for the support to Darwin’s theory that we just KNOW is there somewhere,” said Miss Led, spokesperson for the Institute of Evolutionary Mudbug Research. “I mean, c’mon, all of this evidence that seems too complicated to be the result of chance we can dismiss out-of-hand because we already KNOW that Darwin was right.”

Interestingly Charles Darwin, himself, said that his theory stood or fell based on the fossil record. His idea being that in the years to follow the publication of his theory science would uncover a number of transitional species to support his theory. In reality, just the opposite has occurred. And still, as the evidence against Darwin’s theory continues to mount, many scientists cling to it in spite of what they learn.

“Oh, we’ll find them” said Miss Led, “They are out there. We know they are.”


“Because,” she continued “As I’ve said before, we KNOW evolution to be a fact. So it just naturally follows that the evidence to support that position will show up sooner or later.”


In the mean time, science continues to uncover one “anomaly” after another in support of Intelligent Design. But, of course, we KNOW there can’t be a creator.