The Theory of Abominable Befuddlement

YOUR Curmudgeon has experienced an early morning flash of insight. This essay will be brief; and you should save it. A printout of these words, dated today, will undoubtedly be an historical memento of immense value.

We’ve devoted considerable efforts to documenting the functioning — if that’s the word — of the creationist brain, and in response to our examples of creationist wisdom, many of you remark that they can’t be real, they must be spoofs, there’s no way people can be that messed up, etc. Yet the avalanche of evidence continues, with no hint of an end, so the existence of creationist thinking must be accepted as a fact.

But a question emerges: How can a brain function in a creationist manner? Indeed, how can a creationist brain even exist? Surely, the defects that produce such a malfunctioning organ should have been filtered out of the gene pool long ago.

We can’t avoid the issue: The continued existence of creationists among us can be cited as evidence against natural selection. Therefore, we must boldly acknowledge the Paradox of Creationism: Creationism exists; and if evolution can’t account for it, then what does?

That’s when the answer hit us: We’ll use the methodology of the creationists to solve this problem! As the creationists — or as some of them prefer to be known, intelligent design (ID) theorists — are always reminding us:

The theory of intelligent design holds 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.

Surely you see it now. If we follow their own thinking, the solution to the paradox is obvious: The brain of a creationist is so scrambled that it cannot be the result of natural processes. An unnatural agency must be responsible.

The Theory of Abominable Befuddlement (AB) holds that certain features of the creationist brain are best explained by an Abominable Befuddler, and not by evolution. It follows as a self-evident corollary that ID is caused by AB.

But as scientific thinkers, how can we have confidence in the theory of AB? Again, our inspiration comes from the same creationist source to which we linked above, which tells us:

Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Using this creationist-approved method of investigation, a befuddlement theorist studies the output of creationists, and thus is able to determine whether it is the rational product of an evolved brain, or an example of befuddlement.

We could continue, but there’s no need at this point. You see where we’re going with this. And you doubtless agree.

Verily, this is a glorious day! History reveals that it is a rare occasion when a genuine scientific breakthrough is made. Rarer still to have such an event occur within one’s lifetime. And rarest of all is to actually be the one who makes the breakthrough.

Yet I, your Curmudgeon, am such a one, and this is such an occasion. Time Cube, here we come!

Update: See Proof of the Theory of Abominable Befuddlement.

See also: Creationism and Critical Degeneracy.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

5 responses to “The Theory of Abominable Befuddlement

  1. Further supporting that “the” creationist brain is “designed” is the fact that there are many different “kinds” of creationist brains, ranging from that of the flat-earth-YEC to that of the OEC who accepts common descent, and from that of the most clueless rube to that of the slickest ID activist. Though they do share the “primitive trait” of misrepresenting evolution – common descent? common design? or both? 😉

    You might accuse me of “Darwinist” bias, but I still see a selective “advantage” of all those “kinds.” Essentially the same “advantage” as that of telling and/or believing fairy tales. Or in the case of ID, deliberately avoiding specific fairy tales to let the audience infer their own, and avoid the contradictions.

  2. Frank J says: “Further supporting that ‘the’ creationist brain is ‘designed’ …”

    You must get your terminology straight. It’s not “designed,” but befuddled. And abominably so. I agree that the Befuddler has apparently labored to produce an abundance of “kinds” of creationists, all the more to befuddle them with factional disagreements.

  3. I’m sorry but, I don’t buy it. How is “An unnatural agency must be responsible.” any different from what ID says? Isn’t an “Abominable Befuddler” just another way of saying there is an “Intelligent Designer”? Except, in this case, the “Designer” decided to make some people stupid. How/Why do some people evolve normally and others get befuddled?

    Yeah, I get this is satire. Another slow news day?

  4. You don’t even need an unnatural agency, just a bunch of people will to experience do-it-yourself brain surgery, and an ice-pick. 😕

  5. Good point, so to speak. Well done, Tomato Addict.