The first point I want to raise is one of the things I have been saying about the Discovery Institute for a while is their inability to see the difference between 'intelligent design' and 'Intelligent Design'. They are frequently posting about how this effort or that effort that uses human intelligence to accomplish something is an example of Intelligent Design. Of course, as you might guess, I completely disagree. The main reason I disagree is because they have yet to define a theory of ID that can actually be used. I've posted a bit about this just recently (Intelligent Design vs intelligent design). Exactly how do you justify anything as an example of ID?
The second point is one of their rationalizations that ID is not religious is because they don't use religious terms. Remember recently they whined about an article that didn't mention religion was listed under the heading of Religion in the Washington Post (When Spin starts with a Lie, is it still Spin? I don't think so!). Of course they forgot to mention that it was a press release by the Religious News Service . . . but why irritate anyone with actual facts.
OK, so point one is their rush to claim the applicability and usefulness of ID whenever anyone engages their brain to do pretty much anything. And they also use the justification of not using religion, or religious terms, as one of the reasons ID is not religious. So that being the case, what if we have an example of not only having the brain engaged, but also uses their own terminology? Shouldn't they be claiming this as another incredible example of ID in action?
"The Rise of Intimate Technology: meet the new wave of smart sex toys that will give you a bespoke orgasm"
In the article they also expressly use the term 'intelligent design' (I added the underlining):
"Where Tinder, Bumble and Hinge ushered in a new kind of dating, notably derided this summer as a ‘dating apocalypse’, intelligent design is bringing an uplift in how we make love — a sexual revolution 2.0."So here we have an obvious example of intelligence in use and they even use the phrase 'intelligent design', so why aren't the talking heads at the Discovery Institute crowing about this as the latest crowning achievement of ID at work? Seems just as reasonable as all their other 'examples', doesn't it? (tongue firmed embedded in cheek)