Intelligent Design Zoo

The Empty Cage

This cage is empty… for now. Since God created everything by just “placing” it on Earth, we are welcoming Him to create another creature by just magically “putting” it in this cage. We look forward to seeing what He comes up with.

Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • This video is of a fish named Goldy. This fish is the MCS Mascot and this fish is the primary moderator of content on the site.

  • Leave A Comment

    Notify of
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    Isn’t intelligent design more like evolution + god made it happen?
    Funny anyway.



    Yeah “God” and evolution. Or just evolution and there’s no such thing as God, Santa Clause, or hover boards.

    Funny ad.

    Flats on rent

    How can we search flat on rent,Rented Flats, Rent Properties in India apartments for rent, homes for rent, rented property, flats on rent, 2bhk flat on rent, 3bhk flat on rent, 1bhk flat on rent in cheap and best price?

    Some guy blah blah

    Yar, not intelligent design. This is more like creationism. Though… putting a cage down and expecting God to act like a circus monkey and perform for you, and you don’t get results? WOW!


    Nope, Intelligent Design is against evolution too. Intelligent Design IS Creationism but with web2.0 markup 😉

    The ID argument is based on the idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ meaning some things are just too complex/useful to have had a non-functioning half-developed state.

    The Evolutionary counter argument was “Actually, all the examples you provided CAN be reduced further, and who says 1/2 an eye is useless? Ask someone with 20% vision if they’d rather be blind…”


    Of course, the Creationists counter argument for the cage would be… “Ok, lets put a pile of dirt in the cage and see how long it takes evolution to build us a monkey” 😉


    about 5 billion years, lots of light, water, and a whole more lot of dirt.


    ID is really an evolution (pun intended) of creationism. Proponents of ID would maintain that it’s not at all affiliated with any religion whatsoever, be it Christianity (which, obviously, they actually are affiliated with) or otherwise. They do this because of the United States’ policy of “seperation of Church and State,” which would prevent the teaching of Creationism in schools: It would be perfectly acceptable to teach that a non-divine “Creator” shaped our universe, by sheer coincidence, in the exact way that Genesis describes it. ID is really more of an exploitation of a political loophole than it is an… Read more »


    I went to a Catholic School and I’m religious, but I don’t see why it’s so important for stupid religious people to analyze God so closely, especially when, you know, he’s got that ‘mysterious ways’ thing going on. And the fact that the bible says ‘don’t pretend to speak for God’. So, you know, I trust science, and I’m willing to accept evolution and God without giving too much thought to it, or going wacky insane about public schools like fatty Americans. In my Catholic school, they introduced the concept of intelligent design like this: If you were flying a… Read more »

    Some other guy

    To ‘Some guy blah blah’:


    you n00bs

    An appropriate rejoinder would be to put a test tube filled with amino acids and an electrical source and wait for the first self-relicating organism to appear; or a large container with fruit flies and a radiation source and wait for the new “super fly”.

    You dolt.

    Now, stop conflating Creationism with ID. Most ID proponents I know accept common ancestry, just not driven by Darwinian (19th Century ignorance) mechanisms.


    “An appropriate rejoinder would be to put a test tube filled with amino acids and an electrical source and wait for the first self-relicating organism to appear”

    The funniest thing about this comment is that abiogenesis experiments actually do this. They have certainly created complex organic chemicals out of simple organic chemicals.


    They have, but none of them have sprung to life. 😛


    Anyone who thinks that ID is not Creationism in every way but name needs to go do their research. And I don’t mean in the Bible, for you fundies out there.

    you n00bs

    “The funniest thing about this comment is that abiogenesis experiments actually do this. They have certainly created complex organic chemicals out of simple organic chemicals.” Ah, I see that I’m dealing with drooling imbeciles here, so I’ll type slower and use smaller words… Abiogenesis experiments (initiated and controlled by intelligent agents [sigh]) have demonstrated no such thing. Either you are ignorant, dishonest, or both (which is likely). The best that they have achieved (again, under the initiation, control, and fervent intervention of intelligent agents: scientists) is to produce inert sludge. And in an abiogenesis scenarios you must eliminate even simple… Read more »


    “If ID is Creationism, what am I going to tell my agnostic, Jewish and Deist friends who are staunch ID proponents? What Creation account is ID supposed to be, exactly? You see, I’ve actually done my research which is why I support ID rather than knock down convenient strawman versions of it.” Regarding your “friends”, I think you’re inventing them to help your side. Done your research? Is that so? So then, you’re a supporter of the Discovery Institute? Have an opinion on the “Wedge Document”? You’re a supporter of the pseudo-scientific concept of “irreducible complexity”? Maybe you need to… Read more »

    you n00bs

    “Regarding your “friends”, I think you’re inventing them to help your side.” Hah! Well this would demonstrate that you are ignorant, dishonest or both. Evidently you haven’t heard of David Berlinski, Michael Denton, David Springer, or John Davison, to name just a few agnostic ID proponents. You see, what you need to learn is that ID is simply the modest notion that design is empirically detectable in biological systems. So it seems that you’ve bought into the party line drivel of your political ideologues and conflated the science with it’s possible implications. In fact I do have an opinion about… Read more »


    And I will actually take your arguments seriously when you start quoting from REAL SCIENTIFIC sources. Discovery Institute and their Evolution News? Please! David Berlinski? Sorry, his Ph.D in philosophy does not impress me. Doing many peer reviewed scientific articles lately? Hmm, looks lot not too many. Michael Denton, the former former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute? That same group again…. David Springer, aka DaveScot of Not much of a biological science background there, and blogging with an avowed Discovery Institute shill? And is this the same John Davison who can’t seem to get his “semi-meiotic hypothesis”… Read more »


    Ok guys… lol Articles never get you anywhere someone as stupid as “you noobs”; thats the last time I’ll use the word stupid. I will just explain it in the best way I can, This most probably won’t be successful. But as simply as I’m going to put it, “Irreducible Complexity” is a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution. By god believers hoping to bring scientific bases to their belief. There was never anything half there.. or incomplete. It started very simple but very complete. Then it changes and builds my casual and inevitable miss replications, either good or horrible.… Read more »


    jizzyjesus: No worries, I was not trying to teach “you n00bs” anything. It’s obvious he is far too gone. Just amusing (CLICK ADS) myself (CLICK ADS) with a (CLICK ADS) flamewar, I suppose. (CLICK ADS!) 😉


    Hah! I lol’d d. I’ve never seen this one before.

  • Here's a few awesome images!