Celsus Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 by Bill Shein Did you know that Charles Darwin was a fraud and a huckster who promoted his faux-scientific "humans are related to monkeys" theory just to make a buck selling "Uncle Chuck's Anti-Monkeyfication Tonic and Evolution-Stopper"? It's entirely possible, because, according to the Dover, Pa., school board, not only is evolution "a theory" and "not a fact," there are also "gaps in [Darwin's] theory for which there is no evidence." This means, of course, that the true, wholly non-religious explanation for the origin of life on Earth must be "intelligent design," a refreshingly science-free scientific theory that you may know by one of its more politically problematic names: Biblical biology, creationism or scientific creationism. As a judge in Pennsylvania considers whether intelligent design should be taught in science class, let's review a few examples of how the Dover school board's beloved theory fills those irksome gaps in evolution. TALKING SNAKES: One hole in Darwin's theory — big enough to drive a megachurch through! — is the disappearance of talking serpents like the one that visited Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Darwin's "natural selection" theory suggests that the ability to speak would be a valuable trait passed down through generations of snakes, right? But aside from indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, do we have talking snakes today? No, we do not. What gives? Fortunately, intelligent design — freed as it is from the pesky requirement of scientific testing — explains all. See, regular snakes are frightening, but talking snakes would be so terrifying they would drive human beings irreversibly mad with fear. A compassionate designer — again, not God, because this is not, repeat, not religious creationism in a cheap lab coat — would never subject designees to such horror. Thanks for sparing us from creepy talking snakes, not-God! LIFE EXPECTANCY: Check out this excerpt from Genesis, Chapter 11: "And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad 500 years, and begat sons and daughters." Whoa! People in Bible-times lived for hundreds of years and could still "begat" like nobody's business? Surely the folks at Pfizer would love to know what Shem ate for dinner — as would Elizabeth Dole! According to Darwin, valuable traits like longevity and super-virility should survive through the ages. But today, average life expectancy tops out in the 70s, with an occasional French grandmother living to 118 by drinking whiskey for breakfast and smoking precisely three unfiltered cigarettes a day. But religion-free intelligent design tells us that the designer would know, in advance, that our youth-obsessed culture would eventually tire of the elderly. We'd eliminate their hard-earned company pensions to satisfy Wall Street and then dump them in nursing homes to live out their days in crushing loneliness. The designer wouldn't want that unpleasantness to last hundreds of years, so He — oops, I mean "he" — dialed back life expectancy. Check AND mate, Darwin-lovers! EYES: How could evolution create something like the eye — a complex structure with rods, cones, lenses and, in the case of Brad Pitt, piercing ice-blue goodness that could not possibly be an accident of nature? Sure, scientists have shown how primitive light-sensitive cells evolved into the complicated eye found in living creatures today. And they point to a variety of eye-like structures in nature to demonstrate the eyeball's evolutionary path. Their explanation is, of course, preposterous. Remember, it comes from the same scientists who refuse to acknowledge observable gaps in evolutionary theory like the disappearance of talking snakes and 500-year-old playboys named Shem. If they're blind to such unambiguous facts, how can we view their work as credible? Clearly, examples of intelligent design are easy to invent — er, easy to see. But here's a stumper: Why would a designer create people who question intelligent design? Proponents argue that such doubt, like carbon-dated dinosaur bones, is a test of faith. But faith in what? See, it's confusing because intelligent-design devotees insist it is not a religious theory. N-o-t, not. Gimme an "n!" Gimme an "o!" Gimme a "t!" Not! Maybe those who cling to the wacky idea of evolution are just not smart enough to understand intelligent design, suggesting, perhaps, that they may have evolved from stupid monkeys and apes. Which — as should be quite clear by now — they most certainly did not. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Shein reminds everyone that any ruling in the Dover case is just one judge's theory, and not necessarily a fact. (This column originally appeared in the Berkshire Eagle newspaper on October 2, 2005. Join a discussion about this column in Bill's blog. And read Bill's previous column, "Coping with High Gas Prices"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 What sort of fruit appointed this nut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Ahh, now it's all clear... Nice post, Bruce. Very entertaining read. Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Please tell me this is satire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Please tell me this is satire. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is satire, Doc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HydroTemplar Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 This is satire, Doc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nope, no sir, this is no satire. The push for intelligent design is quite real... unfortunately... (fundie idiots) granted, i think the talking snake and longevity things are, but the incident is unfortunately true... hey... bush is in power... anything promoting fundie idiocy is possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I can't believe someone in this day and age was brainwashed enough to write something like that. This guy sounds like a total moron. I also can't believe he doesn't realize how stupid he sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I can't believe someone in this day and age was brainwashed enough to write something like that. This guy sounds like a total moron. I also can't believe he doesn't realize how stupid he sounds. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Erm... Once again, the column was satirical. I doubt Bruce would have posted it without a parting shot of his own otherwise. Good stuff, Bruce. Thanks for the laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin webmdave Posted October 7, 2005 Admin Share Posted October 7, 2005 Erm... Once again, the column was satirical. I doubt Bruce would have posted it without a parting shot of his own otherwise. Good stuff, Bruce. Thanks for the laugh. It's not satire, it's blatant in-your- face sarcasm. Excellent post Bruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Once again, the column was satirical. I doubt Bruce would have posted it without a parting shot of his own otherwise. Okay, okay. Sadly enough, I can see someone writing that and being totally serious, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Okay, okay. Sadly enough, I can see someone writing that and being totally serious, too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He embeds the counter-arguments and absurdities within the article-- so if he DID think ID should be taught, he didn't help the cause. He is MOCKING the IDers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 It's not satire, it's blatant in-your- face sarcasm. Excellent post Bruce. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hehe, too true. That only makes it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Did people here actually think this was not sarcasm?!!! Thoroughly enjoyed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormwarden Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 A fine, sarcastic read, brilliantly written XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntsvil Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 That was very good satire Bruce. I was very impressed at your Rush Limbaugh way of illistrating obsurdity by being obsurd. Good show old boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts