“ID leaves the identity of the designer open” - Michael Behe
“If “irreducible complexity” requires an “intelligent designer” then would not this designer itself be the ultimate example of irreducible complexity? Who, then, designed the designer?” - Spocko
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” - Arthur C. Clarke

Darwin is indeed on trial, as Phillip Johnson put it.  Courtroom battles between Neodarwinists and supporters of ID are popping up like zits all over rural America.  On the one side are the establishment Darwinians, defending their hard-won, gap-riddled theories.  On the other, the upstart IDologues, who merely want to “teach the controversy”.

What is this “controversy”? It centers around “irreducible complexity”, by which is meant structures in living things that supposedly cannot have evolved, because the separate bits have no utility by themselves, and the whole structure is too fiddly to have been put together by chance, like the proverbial jetliner assembled by a hurricane in a junkyard.  Some have ridiculed irreducible complexity as being simply the “argument from ignorance”, but this has done little to discourage the undaunted IDers, some of whom have college degrees, and who are justifiably miffed at the presumption.

The issue appears too complex for mere mortals to understand, what with flagellae, clotting factors, and monkey’s uncles.  But the legal matter boils down to one simple point: is ID religious or not?  If ID is religious, it clearly does not belong in public school science classes, unless we want to breach the separation of Church and State, and, along with Behe, define astrology as science.  Admittedly, this might boost the popularity of science classes, but astrologers have not contributed notably to human knowledge, with the possible exception of ex post facto predictions about celebrities.

In any case, as Spocko has pointed out, an Intelligent Designer who can create irreducibly complexity must be irreducibly complex Himself.  Now, IDers have long claimed that their Intelligent Designer is not necessarily God.  But if the Intelligent Designer is not God, whom could they mean?  By their own reasoning:  If that which we cannot fully explain must be the product of an Intelligent Designer, and humans cannot fully explain God, then God must be the product of an Intelligent Designer.  Next question:  where did this Designer of God come from?

The answer is simple.  The Designer’s Designer did not come from our universe, but from another universe without irreducible complexity, where things evolved naturally, just as some biologists claim they did here.  Obviously, this means that civilization there is unimaginably more technologically advanced than ours, if they are capable of traveling between universes and creating irreducibly complex Designers.

You may ask, how do I know this?  Because, following a tip from an anonymous source, I tracked down the Designer of God to her modest but fashionably appointed apartment in Peoria, Illinois.  Mrs. Tibbit received me graciously, handed me a whiskey ("I just love the devilish peatiness of Laphroaig- don’t you?") and sat down on a generous divan.

Q:  Mrs. Tibbit, thank you for this opportunity to clear up our misconceptions…
A:  Not at all.  And please call me Sophie.
Q:  Er, okay, “Sophie”.  I’m sure my readers are dying to know, why did you leave your own universe, come here, and Design a God who then created the Earth, the stars, and all living things?
A:  Well, everyone needs a hobby, don’t they?
Q:  Um, okay… Are you saying that you’re an amateur Godmaker, Sophie?
A:  Well, no one has offered to pay me so far.  Mind you, lots of people have cleaned up on the merchandising tie-ins, but I haven’t seen one cent of it.
Q:  May I ask what your profession is in your own universe, then?
A:  Profession?  Heavens to Betsy!  I’m just a homemaker.  That’s why I wanted to try my hand at making something a bit more challenging.
Q:  Some people are dissatisfied with the job God is doing here on Earth, saying He’s (pardon the expression) an “incompetent sorehead”.
A:  Well, I designed Him to have free will, so don’t come whining to me.  Besides, would you rather have one of my earlier tries back again, such as Baal or Gilgamesh?  Come to think of it, though, Minerva was pretty cool…
Q: You have to admit, though, that Jehovah can be pretty pissy…
A:  Hey, nobody’s perfect.  Besides, constantly having to tweak His Creation by Specially Creating irreducible flagellae, blood clotting chains, and whatnot, would try the patience of a saint. Count your blessings- at least He’s outgrown His “Golden Hemorrhoid” phase.
Q:  Thank you for the interview, Mrs… er, Sophie.
A:  You’re most welcome.  Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some tweaking to do of my own, on my current project.
Q:  Current project?  May I ask…
A:  Well, I do feel a bit responsible for you Earthlings after all, so I’ve been working on something to help keep God in His place.  But you Earthlings don’t seem to want any of it.
Q:  And this would be…
A:  Reason.