Intelligent Design by Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Ninjavenom]

Dunno if everyone has seen this yet, but it's a parody of the "intelligent design" shit that's been going on in Kansas for a while. It's awesome :O

[ziggytrix]

[Immortal Goat]

I love that. Did you read the responses from the moderate minority board members? Priceless. Funny none of the conservatives wrote back.

[kellychaos]

Intelligent design is nothing more than repackaged creationsim and should not be endorsed by a state-sponsored institution. Why?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, if you were to suggest a philosophy class be introduced into high school curriculums with theology being part of the course (without being heavily endorsed), then I might go for that. I'm of the opinion; however, that some of these people are looking at this as more of a foot in the door.

Bush On "Intelligent Design" Link

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Does the department of Ed. set the standards for what is acceptable science curriculum? I mean, I know evolution is the accepted method of teaching, but is it like the "official" method of teaching?

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

Intelligent design is nothing more than repackaged creationsim and should not be endorsed by a state-sponsored institution. Why?

So you are saying that the THEORY of evolution should be taught as FACT in public schools instead? Despite the gaping holes and pathological science that it involves in teaching it? Right.

[Big Papa Goat]

Maybe you weren't paying attention in science class when they taught you about what a scientific THEORY, like the THEORY of evolution is.
Also, whatever problems you seem to think it has, evolution is by a wide margin the best THEORY to explain the diversity and distribution of organisms on earth.

[Emu]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

So you are saying that the THEORY of evolution should be taught as FACT in public schools instead? Despite the gaping holes and pathological science that it involves in teaching it? Right.

Are you serious? Saying something is "just" a theory is like saying it's "just" a fact. The theory of gravity is a theory, for example. But people don't go around screaming about how God is keeping us on the ground with his Holy Finger.

[Emu]

No matter what criticisms Creationists or Intelligent Design "theorists" or whatever say, ID will never be science, and if it gets into science classes, I'm getting the fuck out of this country, before the black hole of idiocy sucks me in.

Can you imagine the tests?

1) How, in Intelligent Design, does the unspecified Creator of indiscernable origin who may or may not be divine create life?
a. Magic Powers
b. Undefinable divine powers that are beyond the realm of reality as we know it
c. Evolution/Satan
d. We don't know

2) How do we study the Creation?
a. We read the Holy Bible and discern clues with the scientifically proven fact of gematria
b. We don't know
c. Ask Buddha
d. Fuck, we don't know how this works. BUT WE KNOW IT'S RIGHT.

Intelligent Design can never be put to the scientific theory; therefore, it isn't even in the realm of science. It doesn't belong in a science class. It's all just guesswork.

[Big Papa Goat]

Also, what do you mean by 'pathological science'?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

So you are saying that the THEORY of evolution should be taught as FACT in public schools instead? Despite the gaping holes and pathological science that it involves in teaching it? Right.

As opposed to the strict "scientific" guidlines employed by the Creation Scientists in formulating their theories? My only question is do they wear rubber gloves when they pull these crazy ideas out of their asses.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Also, what do you mean by 'pathological science'?

Punctuated equilibrium is a shining example of pathological science.

[Immortal Goat]

Laymen's terms, please? Descriptions of HOW it is "pathological science" as compared to Intelligent Design, which is obviously "Infallible science".

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

So you are saying that the THEORY of evolution should be taught as FACT in public schools instead? Despite the gaping holes and pathological science that it involves in teaching it? Right.

Not fact. No scientists worth his reputation would ever obstinately settle on something as present and future fact. Everything, including knowledge, is in a constant state of change. It is; however, the current working theory to explain our existence that is accepted by the majority of scientists.

The following does a pretty good jobof explaining how "facts" and "theories" work with and against each other and the difference between the two:

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Punctuated equilibrium is a shining example of pathological science.

Hey, since you're soooo smart, would you fix wikipedia's entry on PE? Cuz what they describe doesn't sound anything like an example of pathological science.

[Big Papa Goat]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Punctuated equilibrium is a shining example of pathological science.

Ah, I understand, when scientists adapt their theories to new data, that pretty much proves that their just patching up holes in a terribly weak theory. I mean, really, if the phenotypic characteristics of organisms in the fossil record changes considerably from one strata to the next, thats probably just god cooking up a new batch of DNA!

I mean really, that nonsense about divergence and evolution of organisms due to events that suddenly isolate 'populations' or sudden changes in the environment, thats clearly just a bunch of bullshit from some fast talking biologists who can't admit that they're wrong.



I mean, come on, the only way evolution could possibly have happened is through a gradual process right? I mean mutations happening every generation, with selection pressures operating at constant levels is clearly the only way it could have worked. I mean, its not like there could ever be some kind of change in factors that would allow an organism to be succesful, thats like totally ridiculous. Organisms always need the same things right? So why would what they have to do to get those things ever change? Plus, what are they thinking, that animals just start mutating every few hundred years or something because of the haleey cometn coming around causing radiation or some STUPID thing like that I bet thats what thye think crazy scientists. I mean, isn't the whole argument of evolution based on the fact that the earth is like 5 billion years old or some shit like that? And now they're saying I guess evolution can happen in a couple of days or something, jeez, make up your minds guys!

Hey, if evolution happens so PUNCTUALLY, then why haven't I ever seen it? I mean, you ever see a monkey give birth to a human, despite the fact that monkeys are often held in zoo's where they are viewed and studied by humans on a daily basis I mean, if that isn't something that would create a selection pressure to give birth to humasn, I don't know what these evolutionists think would be.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Hey, since you're soooo smart, would you fix wikipedia's entry on PE? Cuz what they describe doesn't sound anything like an example of pathological science.

Punctuated equilibrium is a way for scientists to fit things into their theories that wouldn't normally work.

Ie. a dinosaur lays an egg and a bird comes out.

Go science and logic.

[Big Papa Goat]

As opposed to a woman coming out of a rib?
Or better yet, an egg coming from nowhere and hatching a bird, but only after all the dinosaurs were killed by god for allowing gay marriage.
Even better! An egg appearing out of nowhere hatching a bird with a curiously dinosaur like bone structure, after God decided that he'd take up where he left off with his sinful thunder lizards.

[AChimp]

Hey. Let's all talk about how the theory of evolution must obviously be crap because I read some stuff about it while wearing my "Question Everything" shirt.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Ie. a dinosaur lays an egg and a bird comes out.

Go science and logic.

I.E. you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Go learning everything you need to know about the world in Sunday school.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I.E. you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Go learning everything you need to know about the world in Sunday school.

No, it is the scientists who use things like punctuated equilibrium to conjure up the evidence that they need to fill in all of the holes in their theories that don't know what they are talking about.

[Big Papa Goat]

more about

[AChimp]

I have yet to hear anything like what ZS is talking about, but that's okay because I question everything! Mindcrime!

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

No, it is the scientists who use things like punctuated equilibrium to conjure up the evidence that they need to fill in all of the holes in their theories that don't know what they are talking about.

You seem very well edjucated on the subject. Pray tell, what seminary did you attend for these exhalted learnings?

[sadie]

As far as educating people about creation goes, I don't have a problem with any and all theories on the subject being addressed. There's nothing wrong with outlining theories and allowing students to analyze the plausibilities themselves. As long as they're wearing their "question everything" shirts, of course.