Intelligent Designer on Holiday

Death Takes a Holiday (1934)

WE know how to handle the news that creationists are forever stirring up. But the noticeable lack of news about The Controversy this weekend has kept us especially busy here at the CITADEL — The Curmudgeonly Institute for Tactics, Advocacy, and Defense of the Enlightenment Legacy — the global nerve center for monitoring events throughout the Creosphere, where your Curmudgeon is headquartered in his secret underground control room.

What could be causing such an unnaturally quiet news period? It’s certainly not that the creationists have given up their madness and accepted reality — that’s never going to happen. Suspecting that there might be trouble brewing, we began scanning for news far beyond our usual search criteria.

Was there anything historically special about today? Not really. It was on 27 December 1831 that Darwin embarked on the HMS Beagle, but that couldn’t be it. If the other Darwin anniversaries this year didn’t stun the creationists into silence or drive them to violence, the Beagle‘s departure date certainly wouldn’t have any effect.

So we sent our operatives out with instructions to disguise themselves as paparazzi. They went to rock concerts, night clubs, stylish restaurants, and glitzy parties — strange events and venues where science types aren’t usually to be found. And one of them hit pay-dirt!

Therefore, dear reader, your Curmudgeon is the first in the world to report why The Controversy has been so languid lately. The reason is this: The Intelligent Designer is romantically involved with the Tooth Fairy.

Thanks to our diligent operative in Seattle, we have the evidence on tape. Much of it is unintelligible due to rap music in the background, but the tape clearly corroborates this much of our operative’s report:

“We were made for each other,” gushed the tipsy, tutu-clad Tooth Fairy, as she gazed adoringly into the vacant face of the Designer.

“Yes,” the Designer said, “it’s true. It was our destiny. Either one of us alone is formidable, but together — we’re simply fabulous!

So that’s the big news this weekend. We doubt that a relationship such as theirs — based on literally nothing — can long endure, but while the currently-enthralled pair are keeping each other distracted from their regular activities, all will be quiet in the Creosphere.

How long can this unnatural coupling go on? Each of the supernatural sweethearts is riddled with deficiencies — non-existence being merely one of their more obvious shortcomings — so as soon as they become disenchanted with each other there should be a resumption of the usual of news about The Controversy.

Update: See Intelligent Designer on Holiday, #2.

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

8 responses to “Intelligent Designer on Holiday

  1. C’mon, don’t keep us in suspense until the next decade. Did the Intelligent Designer have a noodly appendage or not?

  2. Just a reminder: the current decade doesn’t end until Dec 31, 2010. After all, the millenium and the decade began on 1/1/2001. Happy solstice ,festivus, Hannukah, Christmas…and let’s not forget the feast of the circumcision!

    Cheers, Bob

  3. A question we should pose to the Discoveroids — “Let’s say for a moment that there IS an Intelligent Designer. Who designed him/her/it?”

    After all, if the Intelligent Designer is so complex that it can design living things, wouldn’t it HAVE to have a designer of its own?

    And then, of course, THAT designer would have to have a designer, and that designer would have to have…well, you get the idea.

  4. The Intelligent Designer is one example – possibly unique example – of something that is not designed.

    But seriously, the discoverists have heard that question innumerable times and they have a prepared spiel for it. No matter what you may think of the logical merits of that spiel, it plays well with their intended audience.

  5. retiredsciguy

    I haven’t heard their prepared spiel, TomS. If the Discoveroids claim that the complexity of living things is proof of intelligent design, then they can’t very well claim that The Intelligent Designer is unique in not having a designer. After all, if an entity is so complex that it can design all living things, then by their own criteria of proof it must also have a designer.

    But then that designer would need a designer, and so on — thus showing the fallacy of their line of logic.

  6. I’ll bet the boogyman is jealous.

  7. TomS: “No matter what you may think of the logical merits of that spiel, it plays well with their intended audience.”

    But what only plays well with at most half of that audience is how they answer, or more often weasel out of, “what did the designer do when” questions.

  8. If the Discoveroids claim that the complexity of living things is proof of intelligent design, then they can’t very well claim that The Intelligent Designer is unique in not having a designer.

    They can and they do. (When they evangelize – when they are pretending to be scientists they claim not to know the identity of the designer.)

    You’re making a mistake in thinking that there is some logic or rationality to their position. There isn’t. its pure bombast. Rhetoric with no substance. The ID movement has fully embraced the old adage “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t.”