New Lines of IDC Research

I think it is wonderful that the President has decided to throw his support behind Intelligent Design Creationism. Endorsement from an intellectual of his calibre can only bring more acceptance and funding. Despite the good it brings, it truly saddens me twofold that it took the President himself to get the cabal of science to open their minds to new possibilities. In one way it's sad that the President had to take time himself to endorse expanding the education of our children. He does have more important things to worry about; there is a war on for heaven's sake! The other thing that saddens me is that I know that certain science fundamentalists (such as a certain university professor who live in Minnesota and has a blog) will not listen to their own President. Why do they hate their President? Why do they hate America? Don't they know we are in the middle of a war?

But, as time has shown, wartime is prime time for research and investigation. From jet aircraft to thermonuclear bombs, war is a real boon to science. So I figure now is the perfect time to open up new lines of IDC research. I want to go ahead and carve out my own niche in this new field before the hallowed halls of our universities are too full of researchers working tirelessly on the cutting edge making their own homestead in this brave new world. (Once we get rid of all the scientific fundamentalists, that is.)

I have heard many brilliant critics of evolution cut straight to the heart of the discredited theory's weakness by asking the very simple question "Where is the proof?". I would almost think someone would have thought to ask that question years ago, but apparently nobody bothered during the first 150 years or so of Darwinism. Now the truth is finally coming out. Sure, you have a bunch of bones that you say were arranged chronologically in rock strata (that was all tautologically dated, mind you) that you claim represent a clear progression of species through mutation and natural selection. That's not science! I want proof of your now discredited theory, not your old bones and just-so stories. Darwinists claim that these forces of mutation and natural selection are still at work today in discredited examples like antibiotic resistances in bacteria and varying beak shapes in birds. But those examples don't make any logical sense. Changing allele frequencies in populations over time due to selective pressures has nothing to do with evolution! I asked for proof of evolution, not changing allele frequencies in populations over time due to selective pressures!

Clearly, IDC can do better. And with the support of the President we can now do just that. Science isn't about digging up a bunch of old bones and making up just-so stories to explain them. Science is about doing experiments in laboratories to prove things. (I vaguely remember learning this in middle school.) There are actually several different faith-based lines of experimentation that I can now think up, but I will concentrate on those experiments that prove IDC.

The main supposed "problem" that Darwinists have with IDC is that no one has ever actually seen any acts of creation. Obviously this is false since IDC is logically correct and Darwinism is a logically impossible and full of just-so stories. But, nevertheless, it will be good to have as much proof as possible. Let's start by making some logical divisions of IDC into different categories.

Micro Creation

The first kind of creation we can do experiments to prove is Micro Creation. A pit bull giving birth to a chihuahua or a bat hatching from a chicken egg would be good examples. We logically know this kind of thing has to happen any time the Designer decides to create a new variation within a kind. Proving it would be fairly simple. The chicken egg example seems to be the simplest. Simply gather together a bunch of chicken eggs then wait for them to hatch and keep doing so until something other than a chicken hatches and that's it! That would prove Micro Creation so logically that even the hard line Darwinist fundamentalists would have to concede that Micro Creation is real.

The skies will darken with the ashes of the "biology" hymnals of the Darwinists as they are burned to make room for new editions featuring the Law of Micro Creation. Science, technology, medicine, all will be born again in the cleansing flames of righteousness. Can I get a Hallelujah?

Macro Creation

Micro Creation is when the Designer makes a new variation within a kind, but when the Designer makes an entirely new kind, then that's what we call Macro Creation. According to my laws-to-be (let's just get rid of "theory", that implies too much doubt) Macro creation is even easier to prove, though potentially more costly. There are potentially 3 different ways Macro Creation could be manifested by the Designer.

The Theory of Animalis Ex Animalis

One way of doing Macro Creation is really pretty easy; just make an animal of one kind give birth to the new fully-formed kind. A kangaroo popping out of a koala or a robin hatching out of a crocodile egg would be good examples of The Theory of Animalis Ex Animalis.

This would have to transpire roughly concurrently in two different animals to be able to create a breeding population. We already know, logically, that it takes only two animals to create a breeding population capable of repopulating the entire world. Or, it could happen with fraternal twins, one male and his female. The same thing could also occur twice, one Macro Creation event right after the other with the same mother. We know that the designer likes having His creations populate through incest, at least in the beginning.

Oh, and don't forget that the Designer has the ability to make virgins pregnant. That makes things easier.

Proving this would be much the same as proving Micro Creation. If a new kind was born or hatched then it would be Macro Creation, if a new variation within a kind was born or hatched then it would be Micro Creation. The main goal of the research would be to prove if the Macro Creation happened concurrently in different animals, concurrently in the same animal, or in succession in the same animal.

Ultimately though, The Theory of Animalis Ex Animalis is problematical. If the Designer works by only making one kind of animal give birth to another kind of animal, then how did the first animal appear? Would an all-perfect Designer create a system that has to be jump started by just creating the first kind out of something inanimate or just out of nothing? No. That makes no logical sense. One solution is all the Designer needs. If Animalis Ex Animalis isn't going to work in all situations, then some new method of Macro Creation must be employed.

Research into The Theory of Animalis Ex Animalis would continue, of course, as a matter of Darwinist appeasement. Hopefully they will see enough of their discredited Darwinist beliefs in Animalis Ex Animalis to be tricked into doing research in that area. It will never come to anything, but they will think that if they believe in it hard enough, it will come true. We might even let them call it Neo-Darwinism or some such. True Intelligent Design Creationists will be doing more fruitful research on my next two theories.

The Theory of Animalis Ex Nihilum

The first of these two other related theories of Macro Creation is based on the Designer transubstantiating some Designer energy (the same kind of extra-universal energy He used to create the universe in the first place) into atoms and some electricity, thus causing two animals of a new kind to poof into existence.

Proving this is pretty simple. All you have to do is build a giant box (preferably transparent) and wait for the Designer to poof the two of a new kind into existence inside. For variety's sake, we could even have a box of air and a box of water available for the Designer to choose from.

If funding allowed, we could even recreate the environment found inside an ark inside the air box. We know, logically, that every kind of land animal alive today can live inside an ark. One might think that something from the Antarctic and something from a rain forest couldn't survive in the same environment, but one would be, logically, mistaken. Similarly, the water box would have only salt water in it since we know, logically, the great worldwide flood caused all the fresh and saltwater in the world to mix together and everything alive today survived that just fine.

The next theory might be hard to distinguish from Animalis Ex Nihilum, but it is still distinct. More research would have to be done to differentiate any events of Macro Creation as one or the other.

The Theory of Animalis Ex Ullum

Alternately, local atoms (or subatomic particles, if the right atoms aren't handy) could be rearranged into two animals of a new kind. (I would say that the Designer could even use some local energy to create whatever matter He needed, but that is a theory based on Einsteinism and that was disproved by Quantum Mechanicsism.)

The easy way to differentiate Animalis Ex Nihilum and Animalis Ex Ullum is to weigh the box of air and box of water before the Designer poofs two animals of the new kind inside and after the Designer poofs two animals of the new kind inside. If the weight increases, then it was Animalis Ex Nihilum and if it doesn't increase, then it was Animalis Ex Ullum.

I eagerly await the President to approve funding for these new lines of research. I have a special place on my coffee table already cleared of old copies of Guns & Ammo and church bulletins just waiting for my Nobel Prize. A new day of scientific enquiry is dawning, and I have to say it feels good to be an early bird.

Once all the above is proved, it would also be good to get some funding for some other research projects I've been thinking about.

If I had an accurate enough scale, I'm pretty sure I could detect the soul departing a dead body. Modern CPR techniques and even cardiopulmonary bypass machines could make this even easier. As I stated earlier, the purpose of science is to prove things in a laboratory. One of the important parts of proving things is the ability to repeat it. Putting a person on a scale and measuring their weight decrease as their soul departs is one thing, but putting a person on a scale and hooking them up to a cardiopulmonary bypass machine that I can turn off and then back on again and measure both their soul departing and then reentering their body should be good enough to convince even the most evangelical atheist Darwinist.

A similar test could put a human egg and a bunch of sperm in a test tube on the scale and measuring the soul of the new human entering the fertalised egg. This would be definitive scientific proof of when life begins. We could then expand this by putting a chimpanzee egg and sperm or even a meerkat egg and sperm through the same experiment to scientifically prove that animals don't have souls.

Here's another one. A study that does more than prove that prayer works, but proves exactly whose prayer works. I see so many different misguided believers around these days. Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc. are all sheep who have strayed too far from the flock. The easiest way to get them all back in line is science. Science is wonderful; it gave us television, medicine, the internet, and all kinds of other good stuff. Now it is time for science to pay back it's debt for allowing its name to be used to promulgate the Darwinist fallacy. I cannot wait to see the looks on their faces when it is scientifically proven that their prayers don't work and that the only prayer that works to heal the sick and help the needy is prayer directed towards the grand Designer, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (May His Noodly Appendage Touch Us All).