A left-leaning look at the stories and people that build, shape, manipulate, encourage, and/or contribute to the downfall of the United States.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

A Modest Proposal: Scientific Matrixism

By now we're all well acquainted with American fundamentalist Christianity, and its impact on public schools. Countless evangelist preachers have been pushing for a theory known as "intelligent design" - a science-ish sounding euphemism for "The Bible" - to be taught alongside evolution, subtly implying to impressionable young minds that the two theories share an equal scientific basis, which they most certainly do not.

The "intelligent design" argument goes like this:
The world is far too complex to have formed spontaneously from nothing. It had to have a guiding hand, a "divine creator," if you will. Of course, it's not hard to figure out what deity "divine creator" alludes to, and therein lies the purpose of "intelligent design:" forcing The Bible into heretofore secular institutions of learning. But most of them insist that they don't mind evolution being taught, they just want I.D. taught as well, so that children can see "both sides" of the issue, so they can make an informed decision. This is the way Bush phrased the argument for intelligent design, and his view echoes that of millions (this just wouldn't be a normal post if I didn't include a cheapshot on the president, would it?). Forget that evolution is backed by overwhelming evidence, continuous study and experimentation of the bulk of the past two centuries, plain common sense, and the endorsement of the vast majority of the scientific community ("the people who know what they're talking about"). And intelligent design's factual basis?

One piece of literature.

And let me just say that, while most alleged liberals don't agree that intelligent design should be taught in school, I most certainly do. I am completely in favor of giving kids all sides of the issues. I use the word "all" because what intelligent design proponents have selfishly failed to consider is that there may be more than two sides to such a complex issue. If we're going teach the theory evolution, then make time for another theory, then why can't we make time for a third theory on top of that? That seems fair to me.
And I know exactly what that third theory should be:


The Matrix Theory. I am pleased to be the first of many to be enlightened to the truths contained therein.

The Matrix Theory is quite simple: the world, as we know it, is merely a grand illusion orchestrated by a master race of super-intelligent machines who harvest humans as a source of energy, and use a computer program called The Matrix to create a simulated reality to keep the human race docile and complacent; hence, all that we percieve and have accepted as true is nothing more than a hollow lie.
The factual basis for The Matrix Theory?

One piece of literature (and all derivative works). My theory has the exact same evidence as the theory of intelligent design - and on top of that, it's far more interesting and it's got the box office numbers to prove it! Kids will love to learn about the trials and tribulations of Neo - of His Sermons, perhaps some of them spoken on a Mount - and His bravery in sacrificing Himself for the greater good. Not to mention all the cool CG effects and bitchin' fight scenes.

If intelligent design is going to be taught as if it were equal to evolution, then there's absolutely no reason that Scientific Matrixism shouldn't be taught as well (like how I changed the title of my theory midstream? I've got all the bases covered).
So, Mr. Bush, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and all the other great crusaders of intelligent design - don't have a double-standard. If you're going to push so hard for I.D., push equally for Scientific Matrixism as well.
Because the world is far too complex to have formed spontaneously from nothing. It had to have been created... By MACHINES!!! posted by SwiftyLeZar at 12:17 AM