Egocentric Intelligent Design

Skeptics CircleThe proponents of “intelligent design” creationism have always been stuck with two questions which they are unable to satisfactorily answer. These thorns in IDs side cast doubt on the whole “theory”. I hope to answer them today.

The first is “Who is this designer?”. Creationists didn’t have a problem with this because the answer was god, but the ID crowd try as hard as they can to avoid that answer even though everyone knows they’re talking about god and they don’t have any alternative explanation. Mentioning a god has a serious effect on their claim that ID is scientific so now they just avoid the question.

The second difficult question for the IDers is “If we are designed, who designed the designer?”. I’ve yet to see any reasonable answer offered to this one, certainly nothing scientific. The best answer the IDiots can come up with is:

One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed.

Which amounts to sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU”. If you found a beautiful piece of sculpture, or an exquisite painting wouldn’t you be interested in who made it? Do these people have no curiosity?

I would like to offer my very own creation myth, which I call the Egocentric Intelligent Design Theory. I believe that in, oooh, let’s say 4000 years time, humanity will be so technologically advanced that they finally develop the ability to travel in time. A mad scientist will get the idea of travelling back in time to give humanity a kick start and make our species even better than it is. He travels back to the beginning of time and fiddles with the building blocks of life. He jumps around in time throughout Earth’s history, tweaking bits of DNA here and there and intelligently designing a better world. What he doesn’t know is that he’s creating exactly the same human species as he himself is and he is in fact the pinnacle of his own design.

My theory has all of the same “scientific evidence” behind it as ID does, but it answers those two tricky questions:

Who was the designer? One of us.
Who designed the designer? He did.

It also answers another tricky question:

Why aren’t the designs perfect? Because the designer was only human.

So now that I’ve gone beyond what ID was able to tell us about the origins of life, I think EID should be taught instead of or at least alongside ID in any science classroom where ID is taught. I’m off to Kansas with my petition.

6 thoughts on “Egocentric Intelligent Design”

  1. have you heard of flying spaghetti monsterism? the FSMists are lobbying to have their theories taught in science classes too. They think biology class should be split into:
    “One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”


  2. I’ve seen variations of the same hypothesis in a few science fiction stories. It’s a great one for getting around the who created the creator. A few actually go back and start the big bang as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.