Alternative Design Theory

Intelligent Design Theory made the rounds about 12-15 years ago.  At that time, I was in law school.  While studying for my Torts exam, I hit upon a more refined version of ID theory…Alternative Design theory.

Alternative Design Theory states that the universe is fundamentally defective, but that an alternative design could have been implemented to make it less dangerous. It implies that the Designer, if any, was negligent in His/Her/Its creation of the universe and ought to be held liable.

Evidence of design defects is rampant, and need not be enumerated in detail here. Significant examples include the common cold, earwigs, self-destructive asshattery, and Paris Hilton’s stardom. [Edited to add: see also “President Trump.”]

Much of the evidence for Alternative Design Theory also supports Unintelligent Design Theory, but the coincidence is irrelevant insofar as the particular tomfoolery of the designer may not be employed as a defense against negligent design.

As in actual negligence cases, showing that a feasible better alternative design exists can help to make the case that the original design is defective and unreasonably dangerous.  But it is not conclusive.  Nor is it required in order to prove that the actual design is defective.

Alternative Design Theory explains a great many things that Intelligent Design Theory does not. For example, it explains people’s habit of blaming a Higher Power for their own misfortune. Clearly humans have an innate understanding that somehow said Higher Power fucked up, and that a better design is possible. The theory also explains why humans are so enamoured with building a better mousetrap; they’re seeking presumptive evidence that a better design is in fact possible.

Because the observable evidence in support of this theory is overwhelming (in fact, like Intelligent Design Theory, anything can be attributed to this theory with little to no effort), I shall now, in my copious “free time,” launch a campaign to have Alternative Design Theory taught to our children. What better use for their daily six hours of boredom than solving problems such as hunger, illness, injury, pollution, natural disasters, pestilence, fear, strife, and daytime television in their attempts to find a non-negligent alternative design? I rest my case.


My need for coffee is irreducibly complex. Buy me one.

Advertisements
Categories Uncategorized
%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close