Intelligent Design
So last night my cousin nate showed me a spectacular website that had a satire on the whole Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate... it was siding with evolution because, basically, Intelligent Design is not a science and should thus not be taught in science class. I'd recommend going and checking out the site, it was pretty funny. I think I've just converted to flying spaghetti monsterism... haha. http://www.venganza.org/
read it and cry, extensively.
so today I was like- well, I know some minor thing about Intelligent Design, enough to know it's not a plausible option for the science classroom, especially in PUBLIC schools. But I felt I didn't know quite enough if I want to intelligently rebuke any arguments for Intelligent Design. So I did some reading from some random sites, but mostly from TIME and Wickepedia or however that site is spelled, I forget. Basically it's a ludicrous concept and is in no way, shape or form, a science. It proposes no hypothesis, and offers no evidence. It reasons that things are too complex to be explained by evolution. Way to go champ, you've just postulated absolutely nothing new. I hope that makes you feel smart, because you've just made a pseudoscience out of the concept of creationism, for the 21st century, or rather, renamed creationism for the 21st century. Makes me want to turn your worthless excuse for a reasoning brain-mass into a clay pigeon and yell "PULL!" I shall call it, "Intelligent Demise." But seriously, the concept isn't even recognized by the scientific community. It's considered a false science and, let me reiterate, offers no evidence. It basically says that the gaps in science are explained by god... ummm, that's kinda exactly what every civilization ever has done to explain that which their current science fails to, jackass. The difference? Now we know why it rains and why the sky is blue and why the sun shines. The world isn't flat, quit trying to revert back to that mindset.
The ONLY possible way to integrate Intelligent Design into our schools is to have it be taught in philosophy, b/c it is, supposedly, based on reasoning, and deduction. Proponents of ID even try to use philosophy to back their reasoning for imposing it upon our schools. Hey, do you realize what you just touched on? - The fact that the existence of god is already attended to and supported and torn apart by philosophy. If you were to shift your focus to having philosophy be a larger part of our schools then you would get your religious teachings back in school. Religion itself wouldn't be taught, but the concepts you so valiently claim to be fighting for would be covered, completely. If you really just want children to have all sides of the issue and be able to consider the possibility of a larger force or forces being behind creation, philosophy already covers that. Read some Plato, Aristotle, or even Descartes. You're only a few centuries slow on the uptake of this whole idea that something larger created us. If your intentions for this wholistic view were real, you would be content with this method of attack. Now go back home, rethink, regroup, and hopefully shoot yourself in the head. It would be a joy if people would realize they have little to bring to the table in the way of new ideas. You are a poor regurgitation of an old concept. I hope you feel revolutionary, because you make me sick.
Long live Darwin and "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
-Luke
ps- I had a lot more to say, but I grew tired of typing... look this stuff up yourself and if you are sincerely objective, you will see how ridiculous this new "religion" and the fight to put it in our schools is.
read it and cry, extensively.
so today I was like- well, I know some minor thing about Intelligent Design, enough to know it's not a plausible option for the science classroom, especially in PUBLIC schools. But I felt I didn't know quite enough if I want to intelligently rebuke any arguments for Intelligent Design. So I did some reading from some random sites, but mostly from TIME and Wickepedia or however that site is spelled, I forget. Basically it's a ludicrous concept and is in no way, shape or form, a science. It proposes no hypothesis, and offers no evidence. It reasons that things are too complex to be explained by evolution. Way to go champ, you've just postulated absolutely nothing new. I hope that makes you feel smart, because you've just made a pseudoscience out of the concept of creationism, for the 21st century, or rather, renamed creationism for the 21st century. Makes me want to turn your worthless excuse for a reasoning brain-mass into a clay pigeon and yell "PULL!" I shall call it, "Intelligent Demise." But seriously, the concept isn't even recognized by the scientific community. It's considered a false science and, let me reiterate, offers no evidence. It basically says that the gaps in science are explained by god... ummm, that's kinda exactly what every civilization ever has done to explain that which their current science fails to, jackass. The difference? Now we know why it rains and why the sky is blue and why the sun shines. The world isn't flat, quit trying to revert back to that mindset.
The ONLY possible way to integrate Intelligent Design into our schools is to have it be taught in philosophy, b/c it is, supposedly, based on reasoning, and deduction. Proponents of ID even try to use philosophy to back their reasoning for imposing it upon our schools. Hey, do you realize what you just touched on? - The fact that the existence of god is already attended to and supported and torn apart by philosophy. If you were to shift your focus to having philosophy be a larger part of our schools then you would get your religious teachings back in school. Religion itself wouldn't be taught, but the concepts you so valiently claim to be fighting for would be covered, completely. If you really just want children to have all sides of the issue and be able to consider the possibility of a larger force or forces being behind creation, philosophy already covers that. Read some Plato, Aristotle, or even Descartes. You're only a few centuries slow on the uptake of this whole idea that something larger created us. If your intentions for this wholistic view were real, you would be content with this method of attack. Now go back home, rethink, regroup, and hopefully shoot yourself in the head. It would be a joy if people would realize they have little to bring to the table in the way of new ideas. You are a poor regurgitation of an old concept. I hope you feel revolutionary, because you make me sick.
Long live Darwin and "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
-Luke
ps- I had a lot more to say, but I grew tired of typing... look this stuff up yourself and if you are sincerely objective, you will see how ridiculous this new "religion" and the fight to put it in our schools is.