Inscrutable Malignity - the New Controversy

Millions of Americans are following the unfolding drama in Dover, a struggle to claim the minds of our school kids.  Largely ignored by the media is a new struggle—over their hearts.  Supporters of “Inscrutable Malignity” are demanding a place in Sunday school for their ideas,  which call into question many core beliefs of Christianity.

The recently established Discrepancy Institute is spearheading the drive to change the curricula.  In a recent interview, we asked Institute spokesman John East what its aims were.  “Look, everyone knows that God is supposed to be good.  And everyone knows that He’s done some really mean stuff.  I mean, it just doesn’t jibe—you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that something’s fishy here”.  When asked about the Neotestamentalists who claim that God has “cleaned up his act a lot” since the Olden Times, East replied: “What about that fig tree that Jesus wasted? You call that the act of a benevolent God?”

Many Christians are opposed to the teaching of Inscrutable Malignity in their churches, saying there’s no Scriptural evidence for it.  Bob Patterson, picking up his daughter Suzy after Sunday school, said “Well, if God says He’s good, then all that mean stuff must be good too, somehow”.  Suzy Patterson added “If I can’t believe God, like, who can I believe?  Not my Dad, who lied to Mom about…”  Unfortunately, the interview was cut short by Mr. Patterson, who grabbed his daughter and rushed off saying “I have a roast in the oven”.

But now Scripturalists are under fire from a new theory—Irrepressible Complicity.  Theologian Michael Buhu, the chief architect of IC , explained it for us:  “As many people have pointed out over the years, for instance Dick Dudkins in The Angry Watchmaker, it doesn’t make sense that a loving God could have done all the nasty things the Bible says He did.  There must be malevolent Beings behind Him, telling Him what to do, or maybe just pinching Him and making Him pissed, or killing heathens themselves while His Back is turned.  We don’t really know how it works, but the Neotestamentalists are obviously barking down the wrong barrel”.

Some have leveled criticism at Buhu, saying that his position is not based on Scripture, but on his own religion.  When asked about this, he replied “I’ve never made any bones about being a Carrotstick.  I believe in the Easter Bunny, and that She painted eggs to redeem us.  Do you think it’s just a coincidence that She appears just when Jesus is resurrected?  But just because She is my personal Designer doesn’t have any effect on the theory of Irrepressible Complicity.  The signs of complicity in the Bible cannot be repressed—everywhere you see the paw prints, I mean the finger or tentacle prints, of Other Beings.”

Where all this will end up, no one can predict.  Jenny Flecked,  mother of two children, told us “Well, my kids came home from school today with stickers in their biology books.”  She opened her son Adam’s book and showed us the trial text from the Flagellants, which read:

Dinosaurs are Darwin’s trip
But only God can make a whip

Ms. Flecked sighed and said,  “I’ll be happy if Inscrutable Malignancy isn’t any worse than this”.

Your reporter, zilch

12 thoughts on “Inscrutable Malignity - the New Controversy

  1. I don’t post often, but I just had to let you know how much I enjoyed this article.  It just perfectly describes the ridiculousness of the whole ID concept, and the idiocy of their method.  I was grinning the whole time like a Cheshire cat.

  2. Careful, zilch, you’re bringing too much honesty to the religion.

    Back away from the keyboard before someone gets hurt…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.