It used to be that there was a whole lot of education that went into becoming a scientist.

To be a scientist you actually had to study stuff. And not just easy stuff like "Who is the President of the United States?" (Hint: She was in Earth Girls Are Easy and A League of Their Own).

As a scientist, you were expected to know chemical formulas such as H-2-0 (water) or 2-Pac (rapper).

People considered scientists to be experts and consulted them on important matters like what kind of hangover you'd get if you mixed lemonade and Jagermeister or how to set up a crystal meth lab.

But alas, Frodo, that was in the olden times...

These days anyone can weigh in as a scientific expert, especially in places like Kansas where "intelligent design" is now a mandatory part of the science curriculum.

The last time the educational bar was set this low was when the Scarecrow got a degree from the Wizard of Oz.

Supporters of intelligent design argue that the universe is so complex that it had to be designed by a superior being (like Rush Limbaugh or Barbra Streisand) or super-intelligent aliens (like Henry Kissinger or Salma Hayek).

Intelligent design enthusiasts want their views to be presented as an alternative to the science of evolution. The idea here is that one theory is just as good as another, regardless of any supporting evidence. Kind of like Ashlee Simpson being advanced as an alternative to Melissa Etheridge.

Hey, we get it. The universe is amazingly intricate. So is the plot line in Lost - that doesn't mean it was designed by aliens...although Tom Cruise might give you and argument on that.

Comparing the two sides of this debate seems to favor evolutionary theory...

First off, Charles Darwin had a beard; a good thing when you want to be taken seriously as a scientist.

And Darwin's beard wasn't some scruffy beard like your grandmother has. Darwin's bushy beard spoke to his stature as a scientist. It was as if he were saying, "If I wasn't an expert in my field, I couldn't walk around looking like the lead singer of ZZ Top, could I?"

In contrast, the evangelical preachers who promote intelligent design usually sport shiny suits and ties with huge knots.

If the knot in your tie is the roughly the size of a St. Bernard's head, it is very difficult to be taken seriously on any topic, let alone the origins of the universe.

Secondly, Darwin's book has a weighty title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

The textbook used for teaching intelligent design is Of Pandas and People. Let's face it, you can't possibly hope to be taken seriously if your science book has a title with that kind of alliteration.

However, the main problem with the view that the universe was created by a superior being is: who created the superior being that created the universe? And who created the superior being who created that superior being?

This is what's known in scientific circles as an infinite regret. As in, "I regret ever trying to have an intelligent discussion with a religious zealot."

Still, the creationists might be right...

The world is a magnificent and complex place. We marvel at the color and symmetry of a leaf in autumn. We feel humble when we gaze up at a star-filled night sky. We watch in awe as a sunrise unfolds in wisps of clouds and a symphony of pastels.

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the beauty and intricacy of the universe: god is gay.

Since the universe is so well-designed, it's unlikely that only one gay god was involved. Think about it. There are five consultants on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

It's time we started teaching children that creating the universe was too important a task to be assigned to just one god. You pretty much need a grooming guru and a culture vulture at a bare minimum.

So, come on, Kansas. Get with the program. One theory's just as good as another, isn't it?