Intelligent design

Looks like the christian fachists are winning again in good ole' US of A.

Intelligent design

If this kind of question can about in the UK, should it be allowed? Personally, no, it shouldn't! Since I despise religion as a whole, this particularly ticks me off, slyly brainwashing kids to believe that they and the world around them are made by a mystical big brother ( get on your knees and thank the lord son etc etc!). :roll:

This sort of thing really annoys me. I mean on one hand you have scientific fact that you can verify (to as much of a degree that you can verify anything) and on the other you have facts from a book can not be in anyway proved (and have quite a disturbing lack of dinasours).
Did anyone hear about that million dollar museum that was built to show creationism was right?
The truely terrifying thing is that we are heading in the same direction. With the government selling out the education system to any johnny -come-lately who fancies running their own school, all sorts of fringe groups can now bung Mr Brown a few million quid and run their own academy school. These schools have the ability to put their own slant on what is considered accepted wisdom so that it conforms with their own beliefs.

Just imagine, kids leaving school and not knowing about evolution... or being able to write basic English or do simple sums.

Oh, have I missed something already?
We can probably expect a visit from the usual impotent, creationist, NASCAR dads shortly. In the mean time, there are a few things to be made clear.

1. Science is not about establishing "facts". Rather, the central principle is that theories are developed and presented based upon hypotheses that can be either verified or refuted through testing. By definition it is an empiricist endeavour. Without delving too deeply into epistemological and ontological debates, this means that you have to have material evidence to support your hypothesis.

2. Science can be refuted and theories invalidated, through the presentation of alternative explanations that provide a 'better fit' to a wider range of cases and/or data. For example, the supplanting of Newtonian physics by the development of Relativity Theory.

3. Either way, creationism, or intelligent design (creationism-lite) cannot be sustained in scientific environment as it is dependent upon FAITH, which is defined as:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

In other words, for intelligence design to be valid, you have to present verifiable evidence as to the existence of God.

As far as I'm concerned, you can teach this stuff in a religion or philosophy class until the cows come home, but, as the dictionary definition shows, it has little business in the realm of SCIENCE. One of the main purposes of a science class is to teach the students how to carry out rigorous investigations into phenomena. The 'intelligent design' texts that I've seen and heard discussed have not been able to present their case without resorting to tautological investigation and arguments, and thus are in fact perfect examples of how NOT to do science.
Having said all that, no theory explains the existence and proliferation of Chavs to my satisfaction. Natural selection would seem to argue that they should be extinct (adaptation/survival of the fittest etc.) on one hand, while on the other, I think that they are conclusive evidence of a lack of 'intelligent design'.



Book Reviewer
Pastafarians have nothing to lose but your Parmesan !


Le Chevre

( Vade retro Satanas!)
There was a good article in The Economist about this recently... Some big intelligent deisgn group collected a list of 370 scientists that supported intelligent design. The NAS (National Academy of Sciences) created a list of 600 scientists who support evolution, and whose names are either Steve or Stephanie.

Going to make me sound like a latter day hippy but modern British education has rather too little to do with actually educating and rather too much to do with engendering conformity of thought.
In the US creationism has been banned from the secular state school system by the Supreme Court. The religious extremists then 're-branded' their 'hypothesis' into intelligent design. The basic principal of which is same as creationism, as in 'god did it'. The re-branding using technical sounding words, was intended to deceive people into thinking their idea has some sort of technical/ scientific basis. For example, they don't use the word god, they use intelligent designer. It will take some time, but (I hope) the same laws which prevent creationism being taught in US schools will prevent ID also. It just needs public awareness of the misinformation and lies put out by the creationists / ID supporters.

If anyone is still in doubt about ID being a religious belief and NOT in any way a scientific theory, let me know and I will post an explanation.

(I am an atheist and very concerned by these attempts by these religious extremists to push their views on the rest of society.)
Feck me. I thought the fall from empire would take the USA decades to achieve but the reality seems to be happening much faster. It is the growing intollerance of some of these groups and the push for political power that is really scary.
I think anyone who gets to the mental age of 14 and still can't see the complete flaw in the ID theory doesn't deserve to be educated any further in my book. as for the people pushing the sh1t they shouldn't be near children, let alone teaching them. Evolution has been observed to be as near fact as anyone could need as proof. Intelligent design isn't intelligent at all and is just a warped way of forcing religion into the relms of science. If there was some intelligent being who was designing life on this earth I for one would expect them to hand in their cards right away and find a job they can do properly. Nature is wonderful, but it's only wonderful if you think about the way it developed naturally. If it was by design, it's full of mistakes, pain and suffering.
Any sane person who has been raised on the fine works/thoughts of Dr Seuss will be perfectly aware of the readings of 'Horton finds a Who' and I quote.......
Horton the kindly elephant has his work cut out saving the tiny Whos who live on a speck of dust -- no one else believes they are there! But Horton eventually convinces everyone that 'A person's a person, no matter how small'! Are we also not a speck of dust on someones trunk???
Put that one up your trunk and..................................................................................
If there is a designer he/she/it is not very intelligent. This can be deduced from a number of observations:

1) The design an location of testicles. Why make an organ with such a critical function so temperature sensitive that it has to be located outside of the body cavity making it both vulnerable to painful damage and weakening the abdominal wall (hernias)?

2) The equine hindgut. This organ, which has to process large quantities of material (because a post small intestine fermenting organ is much less efficient than eg a rumen) turns back on itself AND gets significantly narrower at the same point, leaving the animal prone to fatal blockage.

3) The eqine larynx. The nerve that controls the left side of the equine larynx loops around the heart, making it many times longer than the right-hand nerve and leaving the animal prone to left-side paralysis of the larynx.
Speaking as someone who "benefited" from a Jesuit education, I can confidently predict that any child educated by religious zealots will grow to be a well rounded and completely sane individual. Take for examples, Spike Milligan and myself.

Thankfully whoever or whatever is responsible, saw fit to build in a failsafe, it is called puberty.As any parent of a teenager knows, this is the stage where your little darling becomes a snarling beast that begins to questions everything. So I think we can all rest easy, because for every brainwashed zombie there are a dozen who will stand up in class and announce "You are having a giraffe, Father. Further more you can stick that nonsense up your hoop, but you may enjoy that".

I have faith in what can be brewed or distilled.
Aye to the testicles evidence!

The platypus seems to raise certain evolutionary questions or alternatively some god's idea of a good joke.....mind you the Platypus seem perfectly happy as they are.

What the hell to the biblewhackers have to say about, let me guess, Mr Beaver got tired of Mrs Beaver and raped Mrs Duck during the 40 days and 40 nights on the arc, god said they where naughty, gave them a divine punishment and VOILA!


Rowums said:
This sort of thing really annoys me. I mean on one hand you have scientific fact that you can verify (to as much of a degree that you can verify anything) and on the other you have facts from a book can not be in anyway proved (and have quite a disturbing lack of dinasours).
Did anyone hear about that million dollar museum that was built to show creationism was right?
Never heard of Dragons?...

Similar threads

Latest Threads