The Theory of Intelligently Designed Weather (IDW)

We’re writing this for Steve Doocy, a very pleasant television personality who, although not a meteorologist, is the weatherman on Fox & Friends , and who also does some interviews. It was Doocy who recently interviewed Casey Luskin, one of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids).

You will recall that Doocy just sat there grinning while Casey, unopposed, claimed that all the science books used in public schools are wrong about evolution. See: Casey on Fox & Friends. That creationist infomercial still annoys us, so here you go, Doocy — this is for you:

Meteorology is the science that studies weather, and one of its applications is weather predicting. Imagine a movement analogous to creationism, but it’s about weather, and the devotees of this movement oppose meteorology.

Imagine further that a meteorology denier gets himself into a debate with a genuine meteorologist. The scientist starts out describing what we know, and how we can use that to predict weather, and his opponent interrupts with questions like: “Where does wind come from?” and “Where does water come from?” After each question, seizing upon the obvious surprise of the scientist, the meteorology denier follows up with “You don’t know, do you? Well do you??

The meteorology denier claims that he does have the answers. All of these things are divinely created, he explains. Further, he says that meteorology is a failed science because it has no proof, makes imperfect predictions, and ignores the divine aspect of weather. The meteorology denier asserts that he does have proof for the claims he’s making — the proof is in his scriptures.

The meteorologist will object that he’s there to discuss science, and he’s not interested in debating about theology. Even Doocy might handle it like that, at which point the debate would probably end. But we’re writing this, so the debate continues.

As the religious debater exits, another genius takes his place. He too is a meteorology denier, but he says that his position isn’t religious. He claims to be a scientist, and he follows the newly-developed theory of Intelligently Designed Weather (IDW). He’s employed by a think tank located in the Seattle Slough.

The IDW spokesman says that according to his “theory,” wind and water were created by an intelligent agency (this isn’t theology, of course), and thus all weather phenomena are caused by the Intelligent Weather Designer (the IWD). He demands to know why his “scientific theory” isn’t taught alongside the “failed” science of meteorology. He claims that increasing numbers of meteorologists are rallying to the theory of IDW, but those who dare to speak out against the entrenched orthodoxy are “expelled” because the meteorology-only lobby maintains a death-grip on education.

Around this point in the debate, a genuine meteorologist would be tempted to respond with the Buzz Aldrin rebuttal, but Steve Doocy would probably just stand there, grinning.

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

7 responses to “The Theory of Intelligently Designed Weather (IDW)

  1. “Where does wind come from?”

    The Discoveroid blog, wherein Mr. Luskin et. al. routinely break wind copiously?

  2. There are actual meteorology deniers…

    “Like rain. We believe it is a creation of god rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.”

    But they haven’t reached the point where they are so desperate that they deny their own religion (yet.)

  3. 386sx’s note, above, is particularly topical: the Nigerian ‘meteorology-denier’ quoted, one Mohammed Yusuf, is responsible for the current wave of fundamentalist violence in Nigeria. See

  4. Our friends at Little Green Footballs have a link to this post. Welcome, little green folk.

  5. Curmudgeon wrote: “You will recall that Doocy just sat there grinning while Casey, unopposed…”

    You must be mistaken. FOX is “fair and balanced,” so Doocy must have had Casey opposed by someone who represents the other ~99.9% of biologists.

    Also, Doocy’s Wiki bio says that he is a Roman Catholic, and a lector in his church, so surely he is aware of the “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated” of evidence for evolution.

  6. Frank J says:

    You must be mistaken. FOX is “fair and balanced” …

    Yes, but they also run ads for Ken Ham’s Creation Museum.

  7. The Curmudgeon wrote: “Yes, but they also run ads for Ken Ham’s Creation Museum.”

    (sadly expecting a “no”): But they made sure to balance it with a commentary from critics, right?