Talk:Intelligent Design

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent Design article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.

Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 10, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.


Before you leave comments, please take note that this article is based upon fallicious reasoning and idiotic assumptions regarding creationism and intellegent design.

Intelligent Design is Scientific![edit]

The principes of ID is that a higher power created life as it is today. This is totally different from Creationism, which states that a higher power created life as it is today....uhhhh nevermind.

The point is, Evolutionists are evil far left God-hating atheistic liberal commies out to destroy America!!!



See Jay your a Idiot.


What the Fuck Weri long wang? What are you Loco?

What is "Loco"? And there's no need for the bad fucking language either. Just remeber what Mr. Mackey said:
Step 1: instead of ass say buns, like kiss my buns or you're a buns hole
Step 2: instead of shit say poo, as in bull poo, poohead and this poo is cold
Step 3: with bitch drop the t, 'cause bich is Latin for generosity
Step 4: don't say fuck any more, 'cause fuck is the worst word that you can say
So just use the word mkay!

Weri long wang 11:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Shitty article[edit]

This article really sucks. I hate it.

GoodWeri long wang 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Hurray! Let's fuck them Creationists in the ass! Although then they'd be spewing out even more utter shit --MarkHudson 05:21, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)

Way too political[edit]

"Say, don't you think this whole thing is way, way too political?" - Anybody other than Oscar Wilde, whoever he is. Nerd42 15:29, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Not Political Enough![edit]

Also, do you think we could have some racism in it? I don't think we get enough mindless intolerance these days.

  • was that supposed to be funny?Nerd42 15:29, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
of course, everyone knows racism is teh funni --Nytrospawn 15:56, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
do u hav any idea how funny racism is? i like it too, i am one. i even laugh when someone offends my own country.--Iamcon 08:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not Enough Equations![edit]

The only articles that deserve arbitrary equations more than the science ones are the pseudoscience ones. I'm not very funny, but I'm sure SOMEBODY can think of some good excuses for equations. --Carlos the Mean 23:06, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Done --Some Fool 02:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lay off the Polly Tix[edit]

bleh. Unintelligent Design is funny, this article sux Nerd42 13:16, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Parrot Parasites OK here[edit]

This one is funny, too. It's closer to reality, which I think too many articles here forget about - sheer absurdity is only amusing for an hour or two, but parodies closer to reality can create days of convulsive chuckling. I like that there are several takes on the topic (several different articles), and hope, of course, that the evolution article is as willfully destructive and parodic of its topic as this one is.

the political content here is apt; most of the nature of the topic is a political one.

The Creator is Gay[edit]

Everyone knows that the best designers are "flamboyant." How do the fundamentalist promoters of ID deal with that?

for identification[edit]

God made the designers, er, "flamboyant" so they could always be easily identified as not being the "real" designer.\

lol, "Flamboyant Design" --Yoshi-TRM 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Like fossilized Homo Erectus (Gay Erection) Poop --Aentequeveron 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are an idiot.[edit]

Creationists have a scientific model just as good as if not greater than the evolutionary one. And that simply cannot be disputed considering the fact that the evolutionary model is burdened with inconsistancies and fraudulant findings.

--Guido Arbia 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"God did it" is not a scientific model. It's an excuse.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Amen to that. Weri long wang 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, thats good Guido, but you should be bold and put it in the article yourself --Huffers 09:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to tell us this "scientific model?" and point out these "inconsistencies?" The reason why people like you are made fun of so much is because you say these things with nothing to back it up. "Uh...we're scientific! Yeah! Why? Because we say so, that's why!"--Yoshi-TRM 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It's less of a theory and more of a smear campaign. The creationist/ID model is focussed entirely on a combination of "argument from ignorance" and picking on the aberations and frauds of evolution, as though those make their "theory" then correct by default. Look at how many times the anti-neoDarwinianism section of a creationist site mentions Piltdown man...because a fraud like that obviously means that He made the world in six days, six thousand years ago. I'm not a fan of the book in question, myself, but the start of Genesis is poetry, man, and they miss out because they have to take it all literally (even the big musical numbers). --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good start, but you should phrase it in a more "fundie" way. Like "is burdened with inconsistancies and fraudulant findings" could become "There were no transitional fossils found and never will" or maybe "Evolution says that two rocks gave birth to a cat" ore something like that 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh really?[edit]

Take a look at Answers in Genesis, Institute of Creation Research, The Creation Wiki

--Guido Arbia 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

AIG - "God did it" in six days because this book that God wrote says that He did
ICT - with such page titles as "If Apes Evolved into Humans, Why Do We Still Have Apes?" & "Mudcracks and the Flood"...sigh, again, "God did it"
TCW - "the creationist wiki that any biblical literalist can edit", with such pages as "Young earth creationism" ("God did it" six thousand years ago because Bishop Ussher added up the ages of people in the "begets") and the oh-so scientific "Supernaturalism"
Please troll somewhere else. Try gods4suckers; they love young earthers there. Or talkorigins if you want to learn something new.
Again, troll somewhere else. Uncyclopedia is for funny. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

way too much facts[edit]

this article contains too much facts. It's like I'm reading a anti-creationist speech with some humor thrown in it. The article would be funnier if it focused on how stupid the discussion is, not on how stupid either side of it is.

I object! I find this to be one of the better articals here >.>.
I object as well. It's one of the funniest articles I've read on here, despite the controversy. --James-sibley 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. I think it's easy to make less blunt without risking any of the humor value, and instead getting more of it. I've made some changes along this vein; let me know what you think. -- Rei 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mine posting what you edited? That way we can tell >.>. Personaly I like blunt humor ((Ala Mind of Mensina or whatever his name is)) but f the chages are good... then we well keep them :P.
diff, and sign your talkpage posts with ~~~~.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Christians are beginning to vandalize this page, maybe protect it.

Are you kidding? That vandalism was great! I made it an intro quote  ;) They're practicing "Intelligent Page Blanking". -- Rei 00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandals say the darndest things.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Weri long wang[edit]

Can we get agreement about the sort of edits that Weri long wang is making here? For example, this user keeps making changes such as:

*Evolution isn’t mentioned in the bible
*Evolution is wrong.<ref>Mom, Dad. "Evolution, A Myth Your Teachers Teach You". ''Bedtime Daily Press''</ref>
*Evolution is designed to spread atheism.<ref>Rev. Lovejoy. "Evolution's Connections To Heathenism". ''Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Press''</ref>
*I have a degree in mathematics and know how to use very big words.
*Evolution is wrong.


*Evolution isn’t mentioned in the bible
*My parents told me that evolution is wrong 
*The people at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary say it’s wrong too 
*I have a degree in mathematics and know how to use really big words 
*Evolution is a theory, so that means that scientists made it up for fun.
*Charles Darwin was fat and smelly

Claiming that this is "more subtle". Excuse me, but that isn't subtle in the least. It's simple name calling against ID proponents. It also removes the use of clearly bogus references, a common tactic of the ID movement. You're moving the article from "imitating the already laughably funny arguments of the ID movement" to "making fun of people I don't like by pretending that they're making arguments that they don't make." Essentially all of Weri long wang's edits consist of either immaturity ("shit univeristy"-style), arguments that IDers don't make ("darwin was fat and smelly"-style), or trying to *explain* why ID is wrong, often with things like wikipedia references as though he thinks he's actually debating with an IDer here.

Will others weigh in on this, please? -- Rei 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(below is moved from my talk page to here, where it belongs)

I'm sorry if I offended you there, but not all those edits where mine. The part about the second law of thermodynamics was there before I even began to edit it. I will add that you can't make fun of something if there isn't a slight reference to real facts; you can't make fun of evolution by talking about general relativity, and you can't make fun of general relativity by talking about Nike for example. I've just reverted the first part of the article because otherwise a reference is not connected to anything. Weri long wang 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You've done it again. Why are you so bothered about those two parts of the article you keep reverting? Don't you like the unfortunate fact that the Wedge Document was leaked? Weri long wang 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you got me. It's not because my edits are popular that I'm undoing your attempts to turn this into a mix of immaturity ("shit university"), arguments IDers don't make or even think about ("Darwin is fat and smelly"), and debates against IDers who aren't there (with wikipedia links included). Oh, no. I'm doing this because I'm secretly a creationist! Erm, advocate of Intelligent Design. You got me. Time to head back to my bible study group. -- Rei 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I’m getting kind of sick of this. That list of yours is crap and inconsistent – you say “evolution is wrong” twice!

Not my addition, but it doesn't bother me enough to remove it. Unlike the stuff you've been changing.

Is that supposed to be funny? The “fat and smelly” part is meant to imply that the person criticizing evolution (Demski) is childish and has no real argument.

Which is exactly the wrong perspective to take. The article pretends to be from the perspective of an IDer. Which means that we need to make fun of the type of arguments that IDers make. IDers don't make arguments like that, so it's as off-topic as if you had said "Because angry mammoths will kill my mother".

And why are you continually removing the part about ID being linked to the Christian god? Honestly, why? (Without the dumb sarcasm this time please)

Simple: Read the above paragraph. IDers wouldn't out and say it; they pretend that it's not about the Christian God, while they secretly admit that it is. That's why I changed it to a "hidden message" to "loyal followers of the One True faith". I even went so far as to leave the link there so that the "hidden message" will stand out.

This is what you’ve removed (leaving a reference behind that doesn’t connect to anything every time):

  • That explains the less-than-intelligent features in life such as a back-to-front retina, 98% redundant genome and George Bush.
That belongs on the intelligent design by committee page, not here. You're spending *way* too much time making arguments against ID (such as the back to front retina (actually, not the best of arguments to use, by the way -- some of the more twisted nervous systems are better cases. The back to front retina provides more oxygen and is only a minor interference in light sensitivity than the opposite design, found in mollusks) and the 98% redundant genome. IDers *Don't* like to talk about those things. You're defeating the perspective taken in the page by bringing them up. IDers will either claim that such things don't exist, or ignore them.
  • It might be the Christian God ...but it might not, and we're not telling! That's what makes it scientific! (That’s been in the article long before it was featured by the way.)
I didn't take that out. I only took out "That's what makes it scientific", simply to keep the header a bit more compact, and because the joke was already well made.
  • My parents told me that evolution is wrong (that’s been there for a long time too)
Which was not removed, but changed to a much funnier version (read the ref).
  • (This has to be a gold watch which isn't capable of self-replication of course) (probably just a result of you automatically reverting the article to your last edit and destroying all the work done since then.)
No, that was specifically reverted (I never revert without looking at all changes). Once again, you're trying to argue against ID as though there's some mythical IDer reading who's suddenly going to go, "Huh... I guess I was wrong". This is exactly the problem with most of your edits. You're acting like this is a debate, and it takes the humor out. There's nothing funny about pointing out the fallacy in the infamous "Blind Watchmaker" argument as bluntly as you do.

Any reason why you keep removing these parts then if it’s nothing to do with your political and religious views?

Ok then, saying Darwin was fat and smelly as a joke is wrong, but, implying a Darwinist would say this:

  • As an aside, Hitler was a wise and just leader.
  • Hail Satan!
  • Oh, and God isn't real.
  • I hate Jesus, by the way.

Is completely ok? So then, why the double standard here?

Not a double standard at all. You've apparently never read a Chick Tract[1]. This is quote honestly how they present evolution proponents. And they often honestly do believe that evolution and Hitler go hand in hand.[2]

“Shit University” is just supposed to be a daft joke

It's not funny. Hence, I removed it, irregardless of the intent.

I’m not trying to criticize Brown University in any way (Chris Griffin from Family Guy pointed out that “Brown’s the colour of poo!”) You are really taking courtesy a bit too far here – this is Uncyclopedia you know! And by the way, who says your edits are popular? You’re the only one reverting everyone else’s work since you first came upon this featured article. Weri long wang 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For one, someone took the time to thank me for them on my user page. For another, your edits to this "featured" article were after the voting began. -- Rei 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's right. What I put was there while people where deciding whether or not it should be featured, so it can't be that bad. The only thing you're doing is continualy reverting the article back to how you wrote it. You dont understand that the layout is screwed up in your last edit (the reference that connects to nowhere for example). I could try to clean it up, but as soon as you see it's been edited in any way, you'll just revert it right back! Weri long wang 12:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep mentioning a ref that goes nowhere, yet not stating what it is. Care to? Beyond that, you didn't address any of my points, so I feel completely justified in RVing your changes until you do. I will also once again reiterate my request for outsiders to weight in on this debate. -- Rei 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the reference to nowhere (at the start of the article):

<font color = white>(Hidden message to loyal followers of the One True Faith: it really ''is'' the Christian God! We promise! But don't tell anyone.) <ref>[ The designer is the Christian god]</ref></font>

Get rid of that and I’ll forget about the list; it’s not the end of the world. Would it be possible to take away the Hitler/Satan quotes to make it look like a real on-air debate between, say, Ken Miller and Michael Behe. Miller’s a very devout Catholic (although I also imply he’s a mad scientist with canine students) so I can’t imagine him shouting “hail Satan!” or whatever. If not, it doesn’t matter because Modusoperandi has told me we could get banned for partaking in a revert war (I think you've reverted 5 times now). Weri long wang 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed one part of the list – because it’s repeated. Once is enough. Weri long wang 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can do. I'll remove the ref. Also, I didn't add the duplicate list entry, and I'm not attached to it, so I have no problem with you removing it. As for the QA section, I'm going to leave that. This is quite literally how many IDers portray evolutionists (as I demonstrated to you with links to them doing that) (and nowhere does it say that this is a debate with Miller -- even if it was, this is to present an IDer's perspective, not MIller's). Many IDers honestly believe that evolution leads to A) atheism, B) ethnic cleansing, and all sorts of other things. -- Rei 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do keep reverting everybody else’s work on the ID article back to your own edits? I thought that wasn’t allowed. References to Darwinists saying that Hitler is a just leader are, as the website says, stupid not funny (and quite childish and pathetic if you don’t mind me saying so).


Intelligent Design is the presumption that the world was designed by Intel. As such, any attempt to input this theory into the computers of the Uncyclopedia Babel Project is giving "this does not compute" - errors flagged, presumably, by the dual-Opteron AMD processors in each server.

Like, the eye[edit]

Doesn't the eye prove creation though?

Could you elaborate that joke a bit more? It is not yet funny enough to be put into the article. 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Design of animals[edit]

I left this section in the article.

"How about the ocelot, Jar Jar Binks, llama, koala or the back-to-front human retina? No reasonable person can seriously believe someone intelligent designed these animals."

I suggest explaining clearly why these animals and eyes are badly designed (if they are designed). Most readers haven't studied biology at university level. Can someone find a way of explaining things clearly and also making it funny? Can someone find other examples of bad design which can be explained in a funny way like ladies vaginas?Proxima Centauri 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve changed the section about design and childbirth. It was a bit over the top. More important it wasn’t in character. Stuff about tiny little babies tiny little heads is a caricature of the way women talk. Men never talk that way. Especially they don’t if they are contemplating ladies’ vaginas. I’m a little girl noob and it’s affecting the way I write. Writing realistically from the point of view of the opposite sex is slightly challenging for men or women. Proxima Centauri 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Proxima Centauri 09:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC) This and other cased of bad design are in the Wikipedia article Argument from poor design.Proxima Centauri 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

too much publicity[edit]

I would prefer uncyclopedia wouldn't promote this kind of unscientific crap, since it is well known that stupid breeds stupid, and America certainly doesn't need more stupid for all the national debt and everything. Please remove this promotional article from your uncyclopedia. 04:28, September 21, 2010 (UTC)