Watching this circus unfolding over in Kansas has got me thinking.
We have to admit, they've really done the PR on this quite well.
Intelligent Design (ID) is a carefully worded, innocent sounding "theory." It's proponents even claim to believe in the scientific method.
The best way to fight it, is to come up with a PR campaign of our own. One that makes theirs like the fake and opportunistic BS that it really is. Enter: Theory of UN-intelligent Design.
First, what's ID actually
say?
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
Let say we accept the general notion that simply looking at the awe-inspiring nature means that someone had to design it purposefully. (It's a big leap of FAITH, but just go with me for now)
OK, but what makes the creator "intelligent"?
None of their own evidence in the so-called ID literature even tackles that question. They are first and foremost concerned with trying to prove that there IS a creator. The attribution (or judgement if you will) of intelligence is necessarily subjective. Something can be called intelligent only if it has the faculty of thought and reason, or it indicates superior powers of mind. That means they are calling the work of the creator intelligent just because they think the creations are of superior quality.
How are you supposed to prove things are of good quality or bad quality? Of course you can't. But even better than that is this supposition:
There is at least the same amount of evidence indicating "bad" or "flawed" design in nature than there is indicating "good" or "intelligent" design.
Theory of UN-intelligent design agrees the basic premise that there must be designer, however this designer cannot be called intelligent because of design flaws that are both observable and provable by simple scientific processes.
So, now I'm saying that we can prove the designs and the designer are unintelligent or at best have limited intelligence. How? Simple.
Point to anything in nature, anything that supposed to indicate an intelligent design. Then think of an improvement that could've been made on it but it isn't. If our limited human brains can come up with certain improvement that could've been made, and we know they are not, doesn't this indicate at best a limited intelligence on the part of the designer?
Everything can be improved of course, and it can be done quite easily if you don't have to worry about pesky laws of physics. The creater could've simply fiated physical conditions to foster a better universe.
Humans? Our bodies could be much lighter and our energy output more efficient. Why do we need sleep or a tail bone? We could be a lot stronger and not require as much food or no water...etc.
Earth? There could've been infinite land available so resources would not run out. All temprature could've been more suited for humans and animals. Why do floods and earthquakes happen? That doesn't seem like good design to me.
and on and on...
of course the one comeback is the classic religious line: "God works in mysterious ways." In other words, they can shoot back with this:
We know there's a purpose but we don't know what that purpose is.
To which we can happily reply with:
Then how the hell do we know it's intelligent?
If you accept there is a designer, then the only way you can prove it's "intelligent" is by knowing what exactly it was designed for and how it should work. In other words, you must know the mind of god.
They either DO or DON'T. If they do, than the creator is of limited or low intelligence. If they don't, then nothing can be evaluated as "intelligent."
I'm saying we just use this as a rhetorical point, but we can go even further. What if we got a lawyer to argue this and threaten to put it in the future science books that include intelligent design? A sticker reading:
Warning: There's no evidence of intelligence in design of natural phenomena.
Will the religious nut-bags stand for this? What could they possibly say if we try to push it in that direction?