Intelligent Design Venn Diagram
(From Saint Gasoline, via My Confined Space)
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Bay of Fundie is copyright ©2006–2008 by Ron Britton.
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
March 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am
That is hillarious!
And at the same time, frighteningly accurate.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am
call me cynical, but shouldn’t the whole thing be inside another circle, labeled “Collective Delusion” or “Willful Ignorance” or “Cognitive Inbreeding”?
March 5th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Excellent. I would add a third dimension to include christian dominionists and historical revisionists.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Intelligent design has been discredited over and over and. . . If you replace it with Atheistism it would be perfect
March 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I love watching the rise Atheistism.
The Self rightest mass’s just waiting to point and mock everybody who dose not think like they do.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
About as funny as a train wreck; why is it that liberals whine so much about being labeled (justly…) and yet prove themselves hypocrites by labeling those on the right?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Why that’s a good question Deng Hu. And the survey says ” It’s because liberals won’t do the sensible thing and pull their hands out of their ass and stick it in their mouth to get a sample of what their own sh*t tastes like.”
March 11th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Why don’t you two actually contribute to the conversation instead of throwing around right-wing bile? How does this image of ID creationism somehow prove that something is wrong with liberals?
March 11th, 2008 at 11:57 am
It’s not a conversation Ron. There was no question or topic to be dicussed from the get go as like in a regular blog. It was simply an assaultive statement of incredulity ad libbed upon by other little liberal ineffectives. And oh yes, there are many things wrong with many liberals just like there are many things wrong with many bigger picture people.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
all of you are fools. stop fighting each other to prove that you’re a liberal, conservative, or some such other word that identifies you with yet another arbitrary group. christian, muslim, atheist, you’re all short-sighted for believing we’re anything more than people walking around.
this is how we stop paying attention. take that diagram up there, which i personally think is great. inevitably, the comment section deteriorates into a retarded battle between “right and left.”
way to discuss the topic at hand and not your own pre-formed biases.
see what i did there? it looks like i am god.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
—->Alex, those groups are not arbitrary. They all mean something important; that’s why their there. It is you who are short-sided for believing we are merely ‘people walking around’. Don’t sell yourself short. You are worth far more than that.
It is the great dichotomy of man to be the noblest of creatures while at the same time the most depraved.
Also; There is not a person alive who doesn’t interact with the world around them without some sort of paradigm (pre-formed bias). While one may alter their paradigm, as they continue down the never ending path of learning, they will never be devoid of one. It is essential to cognitive thought. It is how we operate.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Was it intentional and realistic that you left liberalism, democrates, and progressives completely off the chart? If so, I find that both fitting and realistic.
OTOH, it shows your slant, bent, rave, and narrow mindset rather than facing reality and alternative views.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
The Intelligent Design Theory is actually very brilliant. It is not creationism unless you believe that intelligence is god.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:11 am
John:
Your comment is off the mark in three ways.
1. I didn’t draw this diagram, and I made that clear in the post.
2. This is a blog. It is a site of opinions. It does not masquerade as a news source or any other medium that has to at least maintain an appearance of neutrality.
3. What do liberalism and Democrats have to do with the invention and promotion of Intelligent Design creationism? None! So why would they even be on the diagram at all? Did you fail set theory?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Se7ensnakes:
“Intelligent Design Theory”, as you describe it, is not brilliant in the slightest.
1. There’s nothing intelligent about it.
2. It isn’t a theory.
It absolutely is creationism in every sense of the word. An unnamed entity with all of the characteristics of God is required. No other entity can fill the requirements. Therefore, that entity has to be God.
Furthermore, ID proponents are all atwitter right now, because they have Ben Stein’s accidental mockumentary, Expelled, coming out next month. Ben Stein has said that the intelligence is God. If today’s most visible proponent of ID creationism is calling it God, then I guess that’s pretty much admitting that it’s God.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Where did all these drive-by commenting trolls come from? Did you get pinged by some right-wing / ID site, Ron?
Something I thought of today. I wonder how often Stein has fundies asking him to accept Jesus? (The trolls may not realize that he’s Jewish.) Is it impolite for fundies to ask their greatest Jewish supporter to stop being so… Jewish? Or do they accept his religion, hypocritically as always?
March 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
ParrotLover:
The article got StumbledUpon. That is happening more often with my articles these days. When it reaches a critical mass of stumbles, it triggers a positive-feedback loop, and I get a flood of visitors. I think the diagram offends Republicans, because they are depicted as the intersection of politics and stupidity. If they’re the ones who stumbled it, that will just bring in more Republicans. The other possibility is my normal left-wing audience stumbled it, but a little bit of flotsam will always come in with the tide.
As far as Stein’s Jewishness goes, there are several things:
1. Fundies will use anyone to accomplish their goals. That’s why they’re willing to vote Republican. They don’t care what other damage the GOP does, as long as they can stop abortion and “the gay agenda”. Besides, any collateral damage doesn’t matter, because…
2. They all think the world is ending soon. If they turned off the abortion spigot, they can face God and say “You have to let us in! Look what we did!” (Of course, if God exists, he’d say “You’re not coming in. Look what you did!”)
3. 10,000 Jews (or some other silly number. Maybe it’s 72!) are supposed to convert when Jesus shows up. It’s up to Stein to be among them. That’s his job, not theirs.
4. The Jewish god is the same as the Christian god (Theoretically. If you actually read the Bible, you’d see that they can’t be the same entity.), so they and Stein agree on the origin story.
It’s funny that the creationists are embracing Stein. The ID-iots say that ID creationism isn’t creationism because it isn’t religion because the designer isn’t God. Stein says it is God. Oops. He blew that lie for them.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I heard from a fundie relative that her pastor said only 30000 Jews will make it into heaven, excluding the “old testament” Jews who never “knew Jesus” and are forgiven for their temporal sin of being born before the Messiah and are automatically in heaven. I love the solid number. So if you are 30001, you’re screwed! God loves you, but you’re SCREWED ANYWAY! You know, for being infinite, God sure loves the nice solid round base-10 numbers… 10 commandments, 10000/30000 saved Jews, Job’s 10 children, 7000 sheep, 3000 cattle, 500 oxen, etc., 150 psalms, and so on…
As for the logic in point #4, given that, how do they argue that Allah in the Quran is NOT the Christian God? Because, believe me, they argue that… The lulz continue forth as they stumble over their own circles of illogic…
March 13th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
First of all, to whomever said the ID is not a theory, please do not go spouting around like evolution is any better. It is also not a theory. It is not testable, observable, or demonstrable. Thus, it is not a theory. If it cannot be tested it cannot be a theory. Calling evolution (macro, that is) a theory is the biggest hypocrisy of science ever. Since neither can be proven, nor disproved, dispelling either is complete ignorance to science and what it truly stands for. I honestly see know problem teaching ID next to evolution as long as God is not mentioned. However, I think it is absurd that right-wingers think it is okay to ask for that, and then not allow gays to express THEMselves. Then again, I believe all politics is royally fucked up. This country really needs a revolution for anything to actually get fixed. Left wingers and right wingers are both stupid as hell. If anyone denies that just take a good look at what each side claims to stand for, they are all hypocrites. it disgusts me.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Knuckelz-dragger:
I’m the one who said that Intelligent Design creationism is not a theory. It isn’t. Case closed.
I find it really funny that creationists like you have been shouting for years that “evolution is only a theory”. Now that you’ve got something of your own that you like to pretend is a theory, you’re suddenly defending the word.
Evolution is absolutely testable, observable, and demonstrable. It is tested every single day in biology labs around the world. Evolution is the fundamental principle of biology. Almost nothing in biology makes sense without it. Virtually all predictions that biologists make rely on evolution at their core. If evolution didn’t work, none of these predictions would be validated.
Go away, and don’t come back until you’ve acquired a science education. Your kind is not tolerated here.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I like how Knuckelz amazing observational skills noticed we’re a bit left-leaning here, so he threw in the gay-rights stuff to try to throw us off and lend credibility to his “evolution is the sux0rz” rant. Nice try. Well, no, not really.
For anybody “on the fence,” so-called “macroevolution” HAS been observed and CAN be tested. I’m sure Creationists will argue and deny this forever, but scientists do have experiments that PROVE speciation. Speciation is an example of macro-evolution.
I read about a cool fruit fly experiment which is a great example. In a controlled lab setting, in not even that long of a time, scientists forced different evolutionary pressures (food) on one initial group of fruit flies that were divided into two groups. In only eight generations, they were two different species that would not (and this is important) interbreed. Cool stuff!
For dozens of other examples of OBSERVED speciation, check out wikipedia and if you don’t believe the wiki, check out the references and see for yourself.
Evolution is very real.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Lol, first of all, I’m not a creationist(I personally believe in God, not the Bible very much though, and believe God created the universe, but as for how it all happened, I don’t know, nor do I claim to take any stance.), I merely believe what is actually scientific. And macro-evolution, the idea that all organisms come from a single organism, that one type of animal, can change into another of the course of time, is not testable, demonstrable, or observable; and therefore, it is not a theory, merely a hypothesis. I do believe in micro-evolution, the idea that animals can mutate slightly and can possibly mutate so far that they can no longer bread with what they once were, but I don’t believe that makes them a different animal, just a different type of the same animal. That is not only testable, but is proven. That is an acceptable theory. However, saying that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution is no less crazy than saying the earth is only 6000 some odd years old. However, I’m not disputing whether or not macro-evolution is true, just that its not proven. So, you see, my problem is not with macro-evolution, it is a fine hypothesis, my problem is with the people in the scientific community, respectable people, claiming it to be true, when it is not proven. I’ll say that again: macro-evolution is completely plausible and entirely possible, anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant to the fact that at this time we are not capable of disproving it, however, the same logic applies to ID, just because you do not believe it, does not make it any less true. (Again, for the record, I take no stances, I just like to educate people when it comes to Science. And since I’m a science major, I think I have a fairly decent understanding of what I’m talking about.)
March 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Well, except that macroevolution is proven by experimentation, physical evidence, and sound theory. ID has no theory, physical evidence, and no way to experiment to test the claims.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Consider for a moment that discussions of this sort pit intelligent (more or less) people against each other and tie up their time so that they are distracted from considering a larger picture. You can make a similar diagram around racial or nationalistic divisions. The key point is that divisions are being leveraged to exert control … the puppets never unite against the puppeteers.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Bill:
Who are you suggesting are the puppetmasters? I believe it is the Discovery Institute. They created Intelligent Design creationism as a mechanism for defeating science, intellectualism, and the trend away from religion. That all seems fairly obvious to me.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Well, of course…
The illuminatis, freemasons, skull and bones, the Fed, the Shriners, al qaeda, the vast right wing conspiracy, the vast left wing conspiracy, FEMA, the French, the French Canadians, North Korea, OPEC, Catholics, the Knights Templar, Ted Koppel, Opus Dei, the Daleks, the Priory of Sion, Israel, the IRA, Mexicans, the Trilateral Commission, Japan, the PeaceKeepers, Kentucky, Wolf’s Head, the Council on Foreign Relations, TV’s Frank, NASA, IASA, the CIA, the KGB, all CPUs, Venezuela, Spider-man, Gaius Baltar, Luciferianism, Rastafarianism, Pastafarisanism, Tom Cruise, Mystical Seven Society, Scarrans, the Burning Spear, Britney Spears, Happy Tree Friends, Lewis Black, Waco, TX, the rest of Texas, Texans no longer living in Texas, those who wish they were Texans, those who don’t know where Texas is, The March of Dimes, George Soros, the WWE, Bilderberg, Hindenburg, Pittsburg, Uma Thurman, The Cult of Mac, Ipod-owners, Branch Davidians, Nation of Islam, Wikipedia, nudists, Planet X, Bohemian Grove, Al Gore, Cloud Strife, Crop Circles, and the VERY MOON ITSELF are all plotting to take over the world by having us argue about creationism versus evolution… It’s brilliant, I tell you.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Knuckelz, I can provide examples of several new species that have evolved within living memory. For example, ebola, SARS and HIV. If that isn’t “macro-evolution”, what is it?
The division between “micro” and “macro” evolution is a false one. Small changes within a species accumulate, and new species arise. There is no special point where an animal thinks “oops, I’m becoming a different species now, better stop evolving!” Evolution of a species into new species is inevitable given enough time.
Oh, and not being able to interbreed is the definition of a new species.
Yes, the evolution of larger animals is hard to observe directly, because they reproduce, and therefore evolve, at about the same speed as us. But we do have indirect evidence for evolution, such as the related groups animals fall into (genus, family etc.), the fossil sequence, showing a variety of intermediate forms, and the genetic similarities, which are greater among more closely related species.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Knuckelz, a few more qualms with your rebuttal of Parrotlover’s argument, namely, that it didn’t happen. You didn’t actually address the point he made except through an assertion to the contrary, for which you provided no justification. I say no justification because you finished your comment with a condescending attitude and a fallacious argument, the appeal to authority. Specifically, the authority of an anonymous person on the internet. If you are really a science major, then I would advise you to hit the books a little harder. Constructing logical arguments clears up discussion and that helps everyone involved.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:55 am
Supermanchild - Sigh, as in most drive-by posters, Knuckelz is probably gone for good.
I must admit that a lot of pro-ID (or at least, the pro-Doubt-Evolution) groups are getting creative. Instead of just arguing against observed fact and solid scientific theories (which is basically impossible to win a real debate against), they are starting to try to appeal to our emotions and act like they are on our side and then inject pseudoscientific statements that are designed, I believe, to make us sympathetic to a knowledgable comrade and maybe finally admit “hey yea, maybe you are right, I guess I have doubts too.” Except that we don’t becuse it’s hard to doubt something you see proven evidence exists, so it won’t work. But it is creative.
Reminds me of this Family Guy episode.
If you didn’t see it, there’s a scene where a preacher comes in and “relates” to the kids at James Woods High by bashing their high school rival, talking in teen vernacular (sort of), and other tactics, to order to win their trust and spread misinformation about condoms.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:12 am
Train wrecks are hilarious.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 am
Judas:
Your comment is a bit vague. Could you clarify it? Train wrecks are funny if they’re in a cartoon and nobody gets hurt. They’re a tragedy when it’s our educational system and students are taught the misinformation of creationism.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
I wonder if ID proponents realize that they are on the same side as Islam–fascist? Both believe that evolution is hooey. There you have it, creationist and militant Islamist have divided the world and plan to rule side by side.
Did anyone mention that evolution says nothing about creation?
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Colleenmike - ID proponents don’t see the connection. They start with the assumption that both evolution and islam are equally wrong and they are right. That’s part of the problem.