How To Think Like a Creationist

During one of our relentless news sweeps, this turned up at the New Zealand Doctor website: Intelligent Design: IntelligentMDx’s new herpes diagnostic test receives EU approval. But a quick glance revealed that it was a false hit. We had accidentally found a news release that began like this:

IntelligentMDx received EU approval of their new diagnostic test, IMDx HSV-1/2, which detects the presence of HSV nucleic acids and differentiates between Herpes simplex virus 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2). The IMDx HSV-1/2 is designed to complement the use of the Abbott m2000 RealTime system, manufactured by Abbott Molecular, a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories. The new diagnostic test can be used to detect HSV DNA in both male and female genital or oral lesions and cerebral spinal fluid, according to a press release by IntelligentMDx on 19 July, 2012.

Okay, nothing there of interest to this blog. It was just a coincidence of wording that caused it to show up in our search. We were about to click away and continue our sweep when it suddenly hit us: A creationist could — and probably will — make use of this news!

How is that possible? Think about it. To begin with, the headline screams “Intelligent Design.” Not only that, but the word “design” occurs throughout the article, and everyone knows that where there’s design, there’s a Designer. That’s a bedrock creationist principle.

Observe, as we highlight that word in a few excerpts from the article. These are in addition to the headline and what shows up in the above paragraph:

The IMDx HSV-1/2 marks the fourth test developed by IntelligentMDx, with other tests designed to diagnose Streptococcus, drug-resistant Enterococci, and Clostridium difficile.


For these individuals and the governments of these afflicted countries, the need for a multiplexed point-of-care (PoC) device designed to detect and diagnose multiple pathogens is crucial.


Well-designed diagnostic tests work to highlight market needs, and often act as an impetus to new therapeutic research.

By golly, by gum! If that doesn’t show the value of intelligent design, what does? The article concludes:

Therefore, it is likely that this approach will define the paradigm in the fight against infectious disease for high- and low-income countries, alike.

It’s a whole new paradigm! When will the Darwinists wake up and stop suppressing research that uses intelligent design?

Yes, we know. Our “analysis” is totally crazy. But virtually all the articles we discuss from creationist websites are exactly that crazy. Alas, after years of discussing such things, we have learned to think as they do. And that’s not good.

Copyright © 2012. 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 “How To Think Like a Creationist

  1. Intelligent design MDX, whoopee. On a related (somewhat) note.
    Okay its probably not related at all so Curm, zap the comment away if distracting.
    Chick-Fil_A donated $3MM to the Family Research Council last year.
    Every time one has one of their “sammitches” one supports lots of stuff of concern, including creationism. Evangelical groups are flocking to their restaurants. Thinking , non designer people shouldn’t ?

  2. will says: “Curm, zap the comment away if distracting.”

    Distracting? From this post? I welcome the diversion.

  3. Retired Prof

    Give me credit for participating in a boycott. Although I don’t know where any Chick-Fil-A franchises are, I will Google the closest one and continue to refrain from going there.

  4. Gabriel Hanna

    @will:Chick-Fil_A donated $3MM to the Family Research Council last year.

    No, they didn’t. It took me all of five minutes to find that out.

    The other four companies Chick-fil-A donated to: Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, Exodus International and The Family Research Council, all could be said to have anti-gay agendas. They also only received a combined $19,500 out of $1,733,699, around 1 percent.

    I know it is terribly important to have a new Two Minute Hate figure, in the Twitter age the Goldsteins wear out faster than they used to. But what the vast majority of reasonable people, when choosing a place to eat, base their decision on food they like at a price they can afford, and not whether a creationist may have got $10 from an organization one of the owners donated to.

  5. Mark Joseph

    @Gabriel Hanna:

    You may be factually correct (“the vast majority”); nevertheless I prefer to remain in the minority, and not spend my money to support organizations which are either socially or environmentally destructive.