Not-So-Intelligent Design

In the beginning, there was Creationism. God created light from dark, and separated the two; then God created the sky and the seas, and separated the two; and then He created dry land and populated the world with living beings (including people); and then, "My goodness," He winked Himself a weekend.
Then, there came Evolution. In the Year of Our Lord 1859, Charles Darwin, a mere mortal, claimed to have created human beings from chimpanzees, and giraffes from horses, and to have populated the world with living beings that evolve over time via a race in which only the fittest survive. And this was Not Good.
So it came to pass from the land of Sea-ttle, Intelligent Design was made manifest. In the Year of Our Lord 1999, the Discovery Institute demonstrated that all living beings were created out of cloth cut by an Intelligent Designer, or supernatural creator, and thereby provided an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins that was a thinly-disguised theological counter-argument against the possibility of Evolution. And this was Good, but not good enough.
Indeed, thereafter, in the Year of our Lord 2000, the scientific community unequivocally smacked-down the concept of Intelligent Design as incompatible with the Scientific Method and inferior to Mr. Darwin's Theory of Evolution. And this was Not Good.
Hark! Whence came the Second Coming of the Savior Jesus Christ in the Year of Our Lord 2012, whom in His wisdom and compassion delivered unto humanity the concept of a not-so-intelligent design, which serves both as a Law of God on par with the Ten Commandments and as a Law of Physics on par with Sir Isaac Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics. And The Lamb of God declared: "All life on Earth was designed by My Father, albeit some of the aforementioned life was not designed in an optimal manner. But all of it was Good Enough."
Since the Second Coming and the advent of a not-so-intelligent design, the scientific community has been at a complete and total loss to respond to or argue against the concept of a not-so-intelligent design, and has thus far been unable to revive Evolution and Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" as appropriate explanations for the origins of species that currently populate the Earth.
==History==
===Origin of the concept===
The teleological argument, also known as the design argument, is one of three basic religious arguments for the existence of God which has been advanced for centuries by such illuminated individuals as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Tropez, and L. Ron Hubbard. Specifically, just after the Dark Ages in the 11th century, when light first resurfaced after a 500-plus year absence, Thomas Aquinas argued that natural things act to achieve the best result, and as they cannot do this without intelligence, an intelligent being must exist, setting the goal and providing direction, and that this being must be God. 
Next, in the Year of Our Lord 1802, theologian William Paley used the now-famous "watchmaker analogy" to prove that the extreme level of complexity in nature's various forms of life demonstrates God's benevolent and perfect design. In response, a young man named Charles Darwin attacked the "watchmaker analogy" in the Year of Our Lord 1859 by providing evidence in support of his blasphemous theory that life adapts to its environment over time, thereby changing in a manner that allows only the "fittest" of life forms to survive and reproduce as a species. Basically, Mr. Darwin provided "proof" that humans were "descended" from monkeys. Virtually nobody liked this. Had Jesus remained in His tomb after His crucifixion by the Jews and the Romans rather than having ascended to Heaven so as to be seated at the Right Hand of the Father, Jesus would have been spinning in His grave.
By the Year of Our Lord 1920, Fundamentalist Christians took up opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution and effectively prevented teaching Evolution in American public schools. By the 1960s, evolution was reintroduced into the school curricula. Then, in the Year of Our Lord 1999, a think tank known as the Discovery Institute divulged its theory of Intelligent Design on the internet as "an alternative scientific explanation of the world in which we live", based on the idea that life on earth is so irreducibly complex, only an intelligent designer could have brought such life into existence. The Design Institute relied on psuedo-scientific "studies" suggesting that messages transmitted by DNA within living cells show "specified complexity" mandated by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent, such that the intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism.
Next, in the Year of Our Lord 2000, every bona fide scientist in the world laughed out loud. Nobody in the scientific community abandoned Darwin's theory of Evolution in response to the Intelligent Design theory, and schools kept teaching evolution in their classrooms.
After this development, God the Father and His Son decided to invoke their privilege of Divine Intervention to set matters straight. In the Year of Our Lord 2012, Jesus returned to Earth from Heaven and gave unto humanity His Law of Not-so-intelligent Design. Through the new Gospel of Bob Jones, just added to the New Testament of the Holy Bible, it is known that Jesus delivered the aforementioned Law with these words:
===Origin of the term===
As discussed above, the phrase "not-so-intelligent design" comes directly from the words of Jesus as spoken during his Second Coming in the Year of Our Lord 2012. These words are known to be true and to have been spoken by virtue of their inclusion within the divinely-inspired, newest Gospel of the New Testament: the Book of Bob Jones.
==Subsequent assessment of Not-so-intelligent Design by God's mortal children==
Biblical scholars and physical scientists have carefully parsed over every word spoken by Jesus with respect to the Law of Not-so-intelligent Design, and all such people have found His words to be theologically, factually, and scientifically unassailable. This is for the following reasons.
===Lemmings: clear proof against Evolution and Intelligent Design===
First, it is irrefutable that many forms of life are not intelligently designed but have still managed to survive over the eons in spite of Darwin's purported theory that only the fittest species survive over time. Examples of such species include lemmings and human beings. Taking lemmings first, scientists have long known that lemmings – a form of small rodent akin to a mouse or vole, which live in the arctic – are far from the fittest species of rodent on the planet. Indeed, lemmings migrate regularly in large packs over narrow cliffs and across large bodies of water that they cannot ever hope to successfully navigate, resulting in mass lemming deaths every year. Lemmings also are proven to lack natural camouflage, and instead are colored such that they obviously stand out amidst their environment so as to be easily seen and caught by predators. Worst of all, despite their tiny size and lack of any natural weaponry, Lemmings do not scurry in fear from larger animals and predators like other rodents; instead, they are aggressive and will attack much larger, dangerous creatures when confronted, leading to their certain demise. As a result of these factors, scientists have gauged that the natural lemming population comes to the brink of extinction approximately every four years. Under Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, there is no way that lemmings could have avoided extinction by now. Even under the theory of Intelligent Design, the continued existence of lemmings cannot be logically explained since lemmings were clearly not intelligently designed. However, in the context of the Law of Not-so-intelligent Design, the continued survival of lemmings makes perfect sense. They were designed just well enough to survive, and this is all that is required for survival under the Law of Not-so-intelligent Design.
===Humans: further irrefutable proof of a not-so-intelligent design===
The species Homo Sapiens is another prime example of a not-so-intelligent design. Humans were created in God's image, but they are at best a very poor reflection of the Lord. Humans were not intelligently created. First of all, one need only look to the Book of Genesis within the Old Testament to see that this is so. After creating the first man, Adam, in His image, God decided Adam could benefit from a partner and therefore created the first woman, Eve. In doing so, God unabashedly did a second-rate job. Rather than simply command that Eve come into being as he did with Adam (and as he did with light, and water, and all the animals), God instead waited until Adam was sleeping and then took one of Adam's ribs in order to mix the rib with some dust and then mold the first woman from the mixture. The resulting being, Eve, was a second-rate creature of minimal intelligence. She was easily tricked into eating a piece of Forbidden Fruit by a slimy snake (Satan in disguise), and then she convinced Adam to eat the fruit as well. Had Eve been intelligently designed, she would not have trusted a strange, talking serpent with respect to disobeying God's direct order not to eat any of the fruit from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge within the Garden of Eden. Snakes are scary and have no inherent trustworthiness. God, on the other hand, is the creator of all life, is all knowing, is all powerful, and is benevolent. Any intelligently-created woman would have ignored the serpent in the Garden of Eden and followed God's prohibition against eating the Forbidden Fruit. Clearly, Eve was not created intelligently. And clearly, God was okay with this fact. Since all humans born since Adam and Eve are the fruit of Eve's womb, they are likewise not-so-intelligently designed.
This same point with respect to humans can be proven by empirical facts. If humans were intelligently designed, they would not have been given the ability to create atomic weapons that, with the push of a button, could destroy virtually all life on Earth in a matter of milliseconds. One could argue that, under certain circumstances, it might be intelligent to design something in a manner that it will fail (such as electrical fuses, which are designed to burn out if subjected to undue electric voltage, so as to prevent dangerous levels of electric currents from entering a building's electrical system and causing a fire). However, there is no logical argument that would favor the intelligent design of a life form such that said life form could, upon a whim, destroy all other life forms almost instantaneously. Such a design (as is the case with humans) is akin to designing a building with a sprinkler system that sprays gasoline instead of water into the rooms and hallways of the building if smoke is detected. Not so intelligent.
Lastly, the idea that humanity's existence is compatible with Darwin's theory of Evolution and Survival of the Fittest was debunked even before Jesus gave unto mankind His Law of Not-so-intelligent Design. In the Year of Our Lord 1968, leading scientist Charlton Heston wrote his doctoral thesis, Planet of the Apes, in which he proved that in a world governed by natural selection, humans would not be the dominant species on the planet; rather, Great Apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas would have already come to topple humanity and reduce humankind to a primitive state of near-extinction and enslavement. As Dr. Heston explained, if Evolution were to actually hold true, humans would have already reduced the world – a previous paradise – into a vast "forbidden zone" due to the humans' propensity to destroy their own environment and themselves. Apes, on the other hand, were proven by Dr. Heston to be the fitter species despite their "damned dirty paws" in that they do not over-exploit the environment or unduly harm other life forms. Neither before nor since Jesus's second coming has any scientist been able to refute Dr. Heston's point.
thumb|right|300px|After writing his prophetic doctoral thesis, Dr. Heston spent time with Pope Julius II critiquing the Sistine Chapel's depiction of creation.
==Future of Not-so-intelligent Design==
As there is no alternative explanation for the current status of the various species that populate the Earth, it appears that the aforementioned law is here to stay. Scientists, biblical scholars, and all other mere mortals must accept the reality that Creationism is a fact while also accepting the hard truth that God (who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent) did not create all life on earth intelligently. What must be accepted is that this is part of God's plan, and there is no arguing with God's plan. From now until Kingdom Come, Not-so-intelligent Design shall remain the Divine and Scientific Law that governs what creatures exist on Earth, and how that is so.
==See also==
*Creationist Theory
*Intelligent Design
*Unintelligent Design
*Triology
Category:Philosophy
Category:God knows what