Intelligent Design Venn Diagram
(From Saint Gasoline, via My Confined Space)
Bay of Fundie
Keeping the Radical Right at Bay
Be a Hero
Directories
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Bay of Fundie is copyright ©2006–2010 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 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 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 macroevolution.
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. 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.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
As a stoopid person, this interweb site makes me angered. Yes, my friends are all religulous republicaners, but that doesn’t mean that I am. You really hert my feelings!!!!!
November 1st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Wow, Tiger Omar Ali-Bashr, that’s pretty funny seeing’s how every Christian I have ever met has told me I’m going to Hell, that I need to find Jesus, trying to convert me and make me think the way they do. If anything, Christians are the worst. They don’t tolerate anyone who thinks differently than they do because they are all arrogant, selfish assholes who think that the way they do things is the only way. Fuck you, you ignorant asshole. Oh, and by the way, it’s MASSES not MASS’S you fucking idiot. I hope you die.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:16 am
For those arguing that evolution is “just” a theory, remember that gravity is also “just” a theory. The difference is that you don’t see people arguing for the inclusion of Intelligent Falling in science classes because they realise how stupid it would make them look.
November 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Gravity for the most part has been disassembled. It’s all relative now.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Actually while I think about it (sorry for spamming): Why is it that evolution gets all the attention? ID proponents are always squaring up to Darwin like he was their child’s murderer or something.
You’d think with people for intelligent design arguing over current cosmological thinking as much if not more than evolution should be their actual cause. Neither can specifically pin point what happens at the exact moment of universal origin but we have a model of a lot that comes after and Genesis definitely doesn’t cover that stuff.
Also for your creationist opponents who claim that they aren’t related to a monkey and are indignant and insulted must be reminded that vanity is deadly sin.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Tom: They do cover cosmology, but the thing is they lump evolution WITH it. If you read Hovind’s conditions for his 250,000 prize (You only get it if you can prove evolution by HIS means) he says that you must prove that “all the stars and planets formed without God.”
Does that have ANYTHING to do with biology in the slightest?
Many others have taken that idea and have come up with the ‘Darwinian System’ which applies to basically any scientific category that they know nothing about. “But hey, Darwin is already being blamed for the Nazis and WWII, let’s just lump it on him!”
Anyway, the youtube user, AndromedasWake has made some very interesting videos debunking their cosmology claims and their idea that evolution somehow applies to the stars. I suggest checking it out. His series is called “CrAP DEBUNK” (Creationist Astronomy Propaganda)
November 25th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
In response to the 4th comment, it is called Atheism, not Atheistism
November 25th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Also the part about Atheists being ignorant and self righteous. You seem to forget the crusades, murdering all those with faith other than Christianity. This has happened to me many times, religious fanatics shove their beliefs down my throat. Atheists base their beliefs on factual information as opposed to the Christian Church that beleives everything they read out of a fucking 2 thousand year old book, with no factual evidence to support it.
Religion was thought up by the corrupt to control large masses of people. They gave people false hopes. People listened because they knew no better and they were afraid. People wanted an answer and something to believe in. There is no plan. There is no meaning to any of our lives. We are all just here by coincidence. When we die our body rots in the ground. The end
November 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Wow. That was very nihilist. No meaning to any of our lives? I find a hell of a lot of meaning in my life thankyouverymuch.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am
a closed mind is the same no matter the polotical or religious view point!
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
Christianity is a virus. It takes over the host and attempts to breed. All Christians should be shot to stop the spread.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Eat The Rich = Troll
“But hey, I don’t believe in god, so I can make up any morals I want,” right ETR?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Eat the Rich is no troll. You sound like one though, Parrotlover. Eat the Rich is quite correct but don’t stop at just christianity. All religitards need to be killed. That’s how they got to be so prevalent, they waged wars in the name of ‘god’ and murdered anyone who refused to convert. Let’s not give them the same chance.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Phil E. Drifter = Eat the Rich’s sock puppet
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:26 am
I think I would rather continue to investigate all avenues then just come up with an opinion on theories. One thing the author messed up on in the diagram- he could have added the comments on this entire sight to disprove the stand on intelligent design… doesn’t seem like a person here could pass my Statistics, Biology or Physics class which when studied with an open mind may give them a clue.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:14 pm
James = Another troll?
I’m pretty sure I could pass his Bio course though. I do TEACH the subject, after all.
Can anyone fire me some info about the whole ‘evolution is the foundation of biology’ argument? I asked about that one a while back, but never saw the answer. I was offline a while, I might have missed it, so a copy/paste would be stellar.
Just to refresh, I don’t dispute evolution, just that it’s the basis of modern Biology. Hooke, Mendel, and Franklin/Wilkins/Watson/Crick did more for modern Bio than Darwin, honestly.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Kenny:
I think what they mean is evolution is the Grand Unified Field Theory of biology. When you look at any part of biology through the lens of evolution, it all makes sense. You can study how cells reproduce or how inheritance works, but when you put it in the context of evolution, you understand more.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:25 am
Ah. I’m not sure I agree, but I can at least see the edges of the argument now. Thanks.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:49 am
Wow, this thread has been active for almost 2 years!
Neat diagram.
I took Tiger Omar Ali-Bashr as being a Poe but I could be wrong. The “Atheistism” and such scream either Poe or non-native-English speaker. (The “Sience major” that can’t write a simple sentence in English has me wondering as well.)
I would dearly love to see IDiots explain ring species.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:26 am
I took ‘atheistism’ as a pun on ‘Cdesign proponentsist’, which can only be understood in context of the hilaric misprint in Of Pandas and People where all occurrences of ‘creationists’ had been overprinted with ‘design proponents’, and which came to surface in the Dover trial:
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:47 am
Is it just me or is blog spam at an all time high? Even with a supposedly pretty good CAPTCHA I still have to delete dozens per week on my blog, which gets far fewer comments than here. This is really starting to piss me off.
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:37 am
I was getting about 40/day for a while. In the last month that has jumped to about 60/day. I’ve resisted going to a captcha, but I may have to relent.
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:03 am
I don’t even understand spam, really. My Gmail account got hacked last week, and ads for Viagra went out to hundreds of people in my address book (I think you guys might have gotten them). Does anyone actually buy stuff through these links – enough to make it worth their while? Or is it all just automated, so it doesn’t actually take up any of their time?
May 3rd, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Thanks Jeff, I’ll have a hardon from now until christmas!
Seriously though, yes, the process from the harvesting of addresses to the transmission of mail is pretty much automated. Most transmissions take place via botnets of hijacked PCs (mostly Windows), unseen by their owner, or from unreachable almost-lawless countries such as China and Russia. I also suspect that there are relatively few active megaspammers- perhaps just a few dozen. At least they all seem to use the same online shopping software.
Because it costs them zilch, and a sucker’s born every 1 minute and 38.22 seconds, it’s a safe venture even if they don’t make much money off of it.
May 3rd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Jeff – I remember reading an article a long time ago (maybe in the early naughts) that asked the very question you ask, does anybody actually buy through these links? I don’t think it was scientific, as they pretty much just had a few interviews with people who bought from spam, so there was no way to know how common those people were.
Doing a gazoogle on spam conversion rate, I found a PDF from Berkeley doing an analysis on the conversion rate. They admit there are flaws in the study, as they only had access to a single data point (one they controlled), but they found the following…
Not surprising that the product that actually sold were penis pills (us men are so gullable), but at that fantastically low conversion rate, how do these guys get money to run the servers that send the spam?
The only thing I can think of is that they are basically running a scam on those who use their spamming service to sell their product. And then the rest of us have to deal with the very expensive mess.
Link to the PDF. I just skimmed. It’s only 12 pages long, but christ academic types are wordy. I nearly fell asleep halfway through the abstract.
http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/2008-ccs-spamalytics.pdf
May 4th, 2010 at 7:15 am
Like I said, they don’t. The established spammers mostly use botnets of hijacked PCs. Here’s an article at Techrepublic about that.
May 4th, 2010 at 7:29 am
Draken – Point taken.
Microsoft offers a free antivirus now (and it’s good — it’s the same engine as the Forefront engine). But they can’t bundle it with Windows for fear of antitrust litigation from McAfee, Symantec, et al. Damn shame.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Why should we be surprised? Theists are the most untrustworthy, intolerant, hate-filled people on earth. Violence, deceptions, distortions, and outright lies have been the methodology of theists since the first shaman shook a pebble-filled rattle.
Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.