Moonie Encyclopedia Article on ID Creationism

Consult the ultimate science book!

(Image from A. Wallace’s Creationism vs. Evolution site.)

Let’s take a look at just part of the article on ID creationism in the Moonie encyclopedia that I mentioned in the last post. The article is fairly long, so the introduction of the article should give us a sense of where its biases lay. (BTW, I’ve been having trouble connecting to their web site. The link isn’t broken. Apparently the site is being hosted on a ZX80.)

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”

But where is the empirical evidence that this hypothesis has any merit?

Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance.

OK, that’s a fair statement.

ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan.

So anything that looks too complex to be natural must be intelligently designed? Where are the objective criteria? It’s just whatever I think, based on my experience?

Intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it can also be detected in at least some features of living things.

Yes, it can be detected, if your criteria is simply “it looks designed to me!” This is the “theory” of Intelligent Design? This is what the creationists are calling science? No wonder we’ve been fighting these idiots for decades. They truly have no concept of what science is.

Intelligent design is not the same as creationism…

Wrong. It is the same as creationism. It relies on a creator. Therefore, it is creationism. Some shit is slow, hard, and packed. Some is explosive and runny. It’s all shit.

Mr. Hankey

…since ID relies on scientific evidence…

No. Saying that something must be designed because it looks designed is not “scientific evidence”. Furthermore, the proponents of ID creationism have spent all of their time telling us that it’s science, and none of their time producing scientific evidence.

…rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines.

Except for the fact that ID creationism was created by religious people and based on scripture and religious doctrines for the sole purpose of promoting a religious agenda.

ID makes no claims about biblical chronology…

That is true. It’s part of their tactic. They’re staying focussed on the creation and leaving the rest of the religion for after they’ve converted you.

and a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature.

Once you accept their premise that there is an intelligent designer, you are faced with the problem that the designer can only be God. No other entity meets the qualifications.

ID does not tell anyone the identity or nature of the designer…

True. That’s how they hide its religious basis. But as I just said, the designer has to be God.

…so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God.

Correct. ID creationism was invented by theists, reasoning from God to nature.

ID is not an argument from ignorance…

Sure it is. ID creationists are incredibly ignorant about science, the scientific method, evidence, and … you know … that other thing … what’s it called? … Oh yeah, REALITY!

…it cannot be inferred simply because the cause of something is unknown, any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence.

I think they’re saying that just because you don’t know how something came about, that doesn’t mean it was designed. They’re only saying that the pretty things were designed. Darwin can keep the ugly stuff.

Ugly dog

ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).

This is a new cop-out I hadn’t heard before. The creationists are getting cleverer and cleverer. Many things in nature are very poorly designed. The best explanation for these, in fact the only explanation that is consistent with the evidence, is that these systems evolved. Talk Origins has a good article with examples. If life were designed, the designer would have to be incredibly incompetent, a massive buffoon.

The comparison to flawed designs made by humans is amusing. The creationists are admitting that God is extremely imperfect. That must be a hard statement for them to make, because throughout history, theists have been talking about how perfect God’s creation is.

ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms…

That’s true. ID creationists are always bragging about how they believe in and support the concept of microevolution. This comes straight out of the Bible. Like produces like. Kind produces kind. A domestic dog can evolve out of a wolf, since they are both dog “kinds”. ID creationists reject the bigger jumps.

…and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.

That’s an ironic statement. The ID creationists are always jumping on evolutionary scientists, because we don’t yet have a complete picture of the evolution of all species. Somehow because we have a few gaps in our knowledge, that “proves” that “Darwinism” is false.

Then they turn around and say that they have gaps too!

ID consists only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent.

But despite that, they can’t even meet that minimal condition! Oh, how pathetic they are!

It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy.

No. It has generated considerable controversy, because it isn’t scientific, and it’s just a stealth tactic to get their religion taught in the public schools.

There’s a lot more to their encyclopedia entry, but I think you get the picture. It reads like it was written by the Discovery Institute. (I detect the Discovery Institute as the designer of this article!)

7 Responses to “Moonie Encyclopedia Article on ID Creationism”

  1. Parrotlover77 Says:

    “ID does not tell anyone the identity or nature of the designer…”

    True. That’s how they hide its religious basis. But as I just said, the designer has to be God.

    It could also be a sufficiently advanced alien species. Yes, I know, that’s begging the question (who created THEM). However, it would be pretty funny to hijack ID messge boards with Star Trekky claims of alien (non-God) creators “seeding” our genetic makeup, just to “force the hand” of the IDers to make them admit they are, indeed, talking about the same old Creationist God and not just any ol’ mortal designer, however advanced. I can’t believe they’d stand idly by while a bunch of alien worshipping wackos take over their wacko group. Good times…

  2. Randy Says:

    I read the entire encyclopedia entry and it seems that it is just an attempt to present ID neutrally. If we want to defeat ID, we have to have a common understanding of what all parties mean by ID, and this article seem much better than the Wikipedia article which distorts the topic and its definition. Honestly, I don’t think the ID proponents would agree to the Wikipedia definition as what they mean by ID. I think this article actually states what people in the ID movement believe, so it is a good resource.

    Overall, the encyclopedia clearly seems to support evolution, as seen in the extensive article on Evidences of Evolution, as well as the articles on Evolution and Charles Darwin. I think that creationists would find the encyclopedia opposed strongly to their views.

  3. Ron Britton Says:


    There was an episode of Star Trek TNG where Wesley Crusher was playing around with nano-bots, let them escape, and they evolved into more sophisticated machines. Wesley Crusher is God! (Oh, the humanity!)

    For the benefit of those who haven’t seen it, here’s a YouTube video that I posted once before. It explains the problems with claiming that the designer is an alien:

    (YouTube page is here.)

  4. C. David Parsons Says:

    I thought the image of the T-Rex with the Bible was to the point; however, not in the way intended.

    Dinosaurs are described in the Bible by witnesses who recorded the encounters. These are not whispy, smoky descriptions, but accurate descriptions from head to tail. You will find the truth about dinosaurs and much more in The Quest for Right, a series of 7 books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect. For more information, visit the official website: [spam link deleted by admin for violation of comment policy]

    Want to review a real science book? Check it out.

  5. Ron Britton Says:


    As I said on the other post, it isn’t neutral. You’re right that we need to understand exactly what the ID creationists are claiming. However, it is the ID creationists who are distorting the definition. It is creationism; they’re claiming it isn’t. It does require God; they’re claiming it doesn’t.

    As for other articles in that encyclopedia, I can’t say. Every time I try to connect, the request times out. You must be having better luck. You should stop reading other things on that site. You’ll exhaust their hamster.

    What powers the New World Encyclopedia

  6. Ron Britton Says:


    Dinosaurs are not described in the Bible, at least not unambiguously. Creationists like you cite the poorly-described “leviathan”. Even if they were mentioned, it would be just another unfactual statement contained in that fairy story, such as the claim that the Earth is flat and that stars are glued to the sky.

    Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist.

    What’s really funny, is you say:

    Want to review a real science book?

    then you say:

    Check it out.

    That’s funny, I thought you were going to suggest that I review a real science book!

  7. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I remember that TNG episode. I was an uberfan back in the day. He might as well have been a god, the writers made him a whiney Boy Genius of every discipline… Sorta like the old testament god, you know. Whiney, I mean.