“IDiot” is officially a part of The Frame Problem’s standard vernacular; “Theistard” is receiving consideration
My esteemed blogging colleague Larry Moran of Sandwalk has long been using the term “IDiot” in reference to Intelligent Design (ID) proponents. For the first 6 weeks or so of blogging on The Frame Problem, I avoided the use of this term, despite my general agreement with it*, in the interest of professionalism. No longer. In the interest of professionalism I will depict Intelligent Design as it deserves to be depicted: as an unthoughtful, delusional, disingenuous, irrational, unscientific and wholly unrespectable intellectual travesty worthy of knee-slapping laughter inter-mixed with disappointed down-cast side-to-side head-nodding.
I’m also considering the introduction of Shalini Sehkar’s “theistard” for very special individuals (and I mean special in the most demeaning sense possible) like Denyse O’Leary, Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, Casey Luskin, Kent Hovind, Guillermo Gonzalez, and so on.
*The reason I generally rather than absolutely agree with the term is that not all IDiots are actually being idiots in the holding of their beliefs. Some have simply been misled by trusted authorities and kin. In any case though, belief in ID necessarily involves delusion, whether by product of idiocy, self-deception, or ignorance with regard to the subject matter.