The Case for Whimsical Design

I've had enough of Intelligent Design. It just doesn't explain enough. What's so intelligent about having an appendix that doesn't do anything except get infected? Or a tailbone, when there's no tail? What's so damn intelligent about hair that falls out of your head, or feet that get smelly, or the vulnerability to lower back strain that comes with bipedalism? Intelligent Design simply cannot compete with Darwin on matters like these. If there's any hope of challenging the place of science in the school curriculum, we need a stronger alternative than Intelligent Design. What we need is the theory of Whimsical Design.

Right away things are making more sense, don't you think? Case in point: an intelligent designer would have no business designing eyes that only last 40 years or so before you need booster glasses to read small print. A whimsical designer, though, would get a kick out of watching people hold a paper at arm's length, straining to make out the letters, denying emphatically that they need glasses. An intelligent designer would be hard-pressed to explain the balding gene. Under the theory of Whimsical Design, however, without balding there's no Hair Club for Men so of course it exists.

Why would an eight-year-old child think it's a good idea to use sandpaper to scratch the words "Yo Mama" into the paint on the door of the family car? An intelligent designer would make kids who are compliant and logical. Only a whimsical designer would try to achieve this kind of outcome.

Intelligent Design is simply a theory that doesn't fit the facts. Whimsical Design is a far comprehensive and reliable theory that will stand up to scrutiny. Please join my crusade to put the theory of Whimsical Design into the classroom where it belongs.