Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salt Lake Tribune)   Utah Board of Education rejects Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. "Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing."   (sltrib.com) divider line 445
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

18051 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2005 at 2:40 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



445 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-09-03 06:22:28 PM  
tryptik:

I think this ties in with the latest ID desperation ploy - that the sequence of molecules that make up DNA are "information," and that information theory or number theory or "I'm just talking out of my ass theory" says that coded information of that level of detail cannot occur in nature.

There was a guy on NPR saying something to that effect.



Actually, there have been scientific, peer-reviewed papers about this notion. It would be a handy way of leaving a message that would persist for long periods of time. Some biologists have looked, and failed, to identify this sort of thing. Such a message would not neccessarily imply design, however.

Calling SETI the same thing as ID is ridiculous, too. There's nothing about SETI that would require an intelligent designer for life. For some artificial signals, yes, but this is a fallacious argument along the lines of equating clocks to eyeballs.

ID has a very small number of perhaps testable hypothesis, but no significant supporting evidence to date. For instance, we could find an ancient artifact that showed video of aliens visiting Earth and periodically tinkering with the genetics of species here. That would be pretty interesting, and probably denounced most strongly by current ID proponents who are really fundamentalist Christians pushing Creationism.

At best, ID is crackpot pseudoscience, and rightly rejected by Utah.
 
2005-09-03 06:23:28 PM  
mbrother: At best, ID is crackpot pseudoscience, and rightly rejected by Utah.


Lots of important scientists are sure that evilution is completely wrong.
 
2005-09-03 06:25:09 PM  
Hey everyone! Smallberries and I agree: the fundies win. Nothing more to see here. It's all over, Kansas is right. Maybe next time.
 
2005-09-03 06:27:52 PM  
The Shoveller:

Hey everyone! Smallberries and I agree: the fundies win. Nothing more to see here. It's all over, Kansas is right. Maybe next time.


Dawkins was being influenced by Lucifer and anyway he was a racist.
 
2005-09-03 06:28:44 PM  
I wouldn't fark BEA ARTHUR'S enormous penis sized CLITORIS with Andy Dick's pussy.

/with apologies to Jeffry Ross

Seriously, I really can't believe that you're still discussing this. Forget evolution for one second. They're trying to teach kids what the scientific method is. There are basic properties that any scientific hypothesis, theory or law has to have to be taught in a science class. You guys are suggesting that we teach kids what a scientific theory is in one lesson and present something that has nothing to do with science in another.

I think that you religious freaks should be worried about doing this and making kids actually think, thereby causing them to doubt your religion than having them exposed to a scientific theory that doesn't even conflict with your whole invisible man thing.
 
2005-09-03 06:29:15 PM  
wydok:

But ID doesn't attempt to prove that evolution is false. It just suggests that an intelligent being was involved in the evolutionary process.


Not true. The essence of ID is pointing out what some non-biologists feel are weaknesses of evolution, and then invoking a designer who did it. This approach says that natural selection and other components of evolutionary theory cannot explain the diversity of species on Earth. They're inconsistent. There's evolution, and the theory of evolution. The phenomenon and the theory. The theory is the science, and the part that is inconsistent with ID. If you're not teaching the theory, you're not teaching science, you're teaching some sort of history.
 
2005-09-03 06:32:03 PM  
Smallberries: Lots of important scientists are sure that evilution is completely wrong.


So are lots and lots of important politicians who got all sorts of fancy degrees and are on TV much more than the atheistic evilutionist scientists who want to censor this nation's founding concept ("all men endowed by their creator...").
 
2005-09-03 06:32:31 PM  
LOL! Benjamin Franklin was greater than God!

He took ordinary glass lenses and fixed God's intelligently-designed eyeballs.

Other examples of intelligent design include:
Down's Syndrome
Sickle Cell anemia
drawfism
Wisdom teeth
 
2005-09-03 06:32:59 PM  
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html
 
2005-09-03 06:34:26 PM  
Lord_Baull: drawfism


What do you mean? The ability to draw fisms?

And if you're talking about dwarfism, well, God probably knew that dwarfs would be good for bowling and porn and that his people would need them.
 
2005-09-03 06:35:32 PM  
I say that the IDers can teach ID in schools when we can teach evolution in church.
 
2005-09-03 06:36:38 PM  
mbrother:

So are lots and lots of important politicians who got all sorts of fancy degrees and are on TV much more than the atheistic evilutionist scientists who want to censor this nation's founding concept ("all men endowed by their creator...").


Evilution encourages naked mud wrestling. Behe says so!
 
2005-09-03 06:36:45 PM  
So are lots and lots of important politicians who got all sorts of fancy degrees and are on TV much more than the atheistic evilutionist scientists who want to censor this nation's founding concept ("all men endowed by their creator...").

Wow. That was the nation's founding concept? I wonder why Jefferson was so strung out on the idea of seperation of church and state? I wonder why nobody bothered to make the Bill of Rights include something about establishing a National Religion.
Oh wait, they did...
 
2005-09-03 06:37:58 PM  
What do you mean? The ability to draw fisms?

Damn these intelligently-designed spell checkers!!
 
2005-09-03 06:38:08 PM  
suprslackr: I say that the IDers can teach ID in schools when we can teach evolution in church.


Evolutionism can't explain homosexuality.
 
2005-09-03 06:43:01 PM  
Leave it to the religious right to think Darwinism is a left-wing consipriacy.
 
2005-09-03 06:43:56 PM  
Actually, ID and Creationism do belong in biology textbooks. I remember e.g. a physics textbook pointing out the ideas that were proven wrong and why they were wrong (e.g. the 4 elements: earth, fire, air, and water). Obviously, it is necessary to point out the Creationist fallacies, since so many people are duped by them. A good set of examples is here (pops). That shows the lies (they have been pointed out numerous times to Wells, so he is a liar, not just wrong) in the textbook that the ID movement is trying to push into the classrooms.
 
2005-09-03 06:44:04 PM  
Evolutionism can't explain homosexuality.

For that matter, ID can't either.
 
2005-09-03 06:44:55 PM  
DIGITALgimpus: Leave it to the religious right to think Darwinism is a left-wing consipriacy.


Stephen Jay Gould was being influenced by atheists and anyway he was a heathen.
 
2005-09-03 06:45:30 PM  
Steak:

Actually, ID and Creationism do belong in biology textbooks. I remember e.g. a physics textbook pointing out the ideas that were proven wrong and why they were wrong (e.g. the 4 elements: earth, fire, air, and water). Obviously, it is necessary to point out the Creationist fallacies, since so many people are duped by them. A good set of examples is here (pops). That shows the lies (they have been pointed out numerous times to Wells, so he is a liar, not just wrong) in the textbook that the ID movement is trying to push into the classrooms.


Evilution encourages us to behave like animals.
 
2005-09-03 06:46:23 PM  
Evolutionism can't explain homosexuality

Homosexuality is observed among every species on the planet. The purpose? Crowd control while maintaining social order....
 
2005-09-03 06:47:25 PM  
Lord_Baull:

Wow. That was the nation's founding concept? I wonder why Jefferson was so strung out on the idea of seperation of church and state? I wonder why nobody bothered to make the Bill of Rights include something about establishing a National Religion.
Oh wait, they did...



So you're saying that science and religion aren't the same thing? Now I suppose you're going to tell me that slavery isn't freedom, that war isn't peace, or that ignorance isn't strength? And don't even start on that stuff about how white isn't black. I hate it when you sheep do that...
 
2005-09-03 06:47:28 PM  
findthefish:

Homosexuality is observed among every species on the planet. The purpose? Crowd control while maintaining social order....


So evilution encourages us to behave like animals.
 
2005-09-03 06:48:17 PM  
mbrother:

So you're saying that science and religion aren't the same thing? Now I suppose you're going to tell me that slavery isn't freedom, that war isn't peace, or that ignorance isn't strength? And don't even start on that stuff about how white isn't black. I hate it when you sheep do that...


Evolution encourages racism.
 
2005-09-03 06:48:48 PM  
Smallberries

Evilution encourages us to behave like animals.

Evilution encourges us to fark as often as possible!

/cue 70's porn music
 
2005-09-03 06:49:34 PM  
IMAGINE BEA ARTHUR'S CLITORIS:

Evilution encourges us to fark as often as possible!

/cue 70's porn music


Sure worked for Johnny Holms, errr....
 
2005-09-03 06:49:43 PM  
Smallberries

We ARE animals.....gosh!
 
2005-09-03 06:50:15 PM  
findthefish: We ARE animals.....gosh!


Intelligent design is certainly a more morally acceptable theory than evolution.
 
2005-09-03 06:51:37 PM  
Intelligent design...is an idea...not a theory.
 
2005-09-03 06:53:28 PM  
 
2005-09-03 06:58:17 PM  
wow..just wow..I wonder if this bot could stand in for me when I work from home?

/I'll get right on it

//Let me research this

///hmmmm..that's a head scratcher
 
2005-09-03 06:58:24 PM  
i'm surprised no one has tried to wedge in panspermia/exogenesis. perhaps if you throw enough other theories out there, the sheer weight of material will overwhelm the ability to present it in the classroom, so they could huck the whole thing. but probably not.
 
2005-09-03 06:58:44 PM  
findthefish: Intelligent design...is an idea...not a theory.


William Dembski said that Richard Dawkins was wrong because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
 
2005-09-03 07:10:41 PM  
Creationists refute the theory of evolution because they say it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that ALL natural processes tend to move towards a state of DISORDER.

/that's what I said to people when I believed in god.
//Don't believe in evolution though.
///nihilist.
 
2005-09-03 07:16:00 PM  
GoSurfing

If I hold a string with a rock at the end of it, and the wind blows the rock in the wind, a natural process that is causing the rock to sway, will it start bouncing around crazy after a while, or will it eventually settle to a rest?
 
2005-09-03 07:21:07 PM  
malainse

Near as i can tell there is no such thing as a complete clean and pure religion.

Zoroastrianism? Sikhism?

Maybe.
 
2005-09-03 07:22:11 PM  
GoSurfing

No, GoSurfing, the second law of Thermodynamics states that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE as a WHOLE moves towards a state of Disorder.

In other words, that within a closed system, there is always a NET INCREASE in entropy.

Guess what? The earth isn't a closed system! Do you see that big, flaming ball of nuclear-fusing gas in the sky? That pumps energy into the earth, and so, on earth, Entropy Decreases. BUT! Entropy increaes throughout the rest of the universe, because the sun is expending it's own energy, and moving towards the point where it will collapse and scatter. Thus, there is still a net increase in entropy.

Sorry, but as a physics major, I HATE IT when people mis-apply these rules. Drives me friggen nuts...
 
2005-09-03 07:25:03 PM  
2005-09-03 06:06:33 PM Steak

I don't understand, maybe you read my post too quickly?

I think I did, yes It would be an interesting study in science versus opinion. The only problem is that you'd have the IDists even madder than they are now.
 
2005-09-03 07:34:31 PM  
Felgraf I HATE IT when people mis-apply these rules. Drives me friggen nuts...

Get used to it. Willful ignorance is a biatch. Or maybe a mofo. Yeah, more of a mofo really.
 
2005-09-03 07:38:50 PM  
We're dealing with censorship here. If we only taught Shakespeare in English class, that wouldn't be fair.

TheKnownUniverse
My faulty analogy detecting device just blew up.

Your analogy detecting device is faulty? Well then what did you expect.
 
2005-09-03 07:47:50 PM  
IDer's and creationists know how to please an audience, and that's the crux their strategy. It's just like politics, where they know how to appeal to an audience's biases. They won't debate the science of it anywhere, since it is not even acknowledged by the scientific community (most ID papers, if I remember right, were rejected by the major journals), simply because it's so far from science it ain't even funny.

Furthermore, the well-prepared IDer can smear a biologist in a public debate. You ever heard some of these debates? It's just like reading these threads. Same lies, misrepresentations, out-of-context quoting. Scientists can debunk the nonsense, but they're not as charasmatic as Iders. Especially when IDers put on their oppression hats and start crying discrimination. That emotional appeal goes a lot futher than facts can.

People can believe wahtever they want, I don't really care. But these strategies are dishonest, manipulative, and so obviously politically motivated.

//Slash
////Slash!!!
 
2005-09-03 07:48:19 PM  
Some Athiests are misusing Evolution to support their religion.

Evolution does not say that there is no God, and that living beings have no soul, etc. It doesn't even mention those things at all. It does not even say where life originally came from.

In fact, some Christians support Evolution, and say that God brought it forth.

The main problem that Christians have is that some Athiests use Evolution to prove there is no God, and no soul or spirit in living things, and try to teach that in a classroom.
 
2005-09-03 07:58:48 PM  
orion_blastar: The main problem that Christians have is that some Athiests use Evolution to prove there is no God, and no soul or spirit in living things, and try to teach that in a classroom.

huh?

i don't remember god being mentioned in the realm of science...at all...in a classroom until you get into the creationist/ID realm of things.

the crux of the biscuit on this one...evolution *does* contradict the first two parables in the bible. a whole heck of a lot of folks have absolutely no problem what so ever with this. they can accept that genesis is parable, and science is science. both have value. there a decent sized handful of literalists that cannot accept that genesis is parable, tho. down to a number, every one of the 'institutes' and policy wonk groups that are pushing the ID debate into whatever venue they can grab ahold of....biblical literalists, every one.
 
2005-09-03 08:07:16 PM  
OK I farked up and didn't read enough into it...Sorry to diss the Utahns.

The beauty of Science is that all ideas are given equal creedence and analyzed. Some are accepted, some are dismissed, and some ideas replace existing 'best' ideas.

It's commitment to excellence! Buy my book and tape series!
 
2005-09-03 08:16:17 PM  
Unlike the Kansas School Board, which earlier this summer approved allowing educators to teach theories in addition to evolution that explain life on Earth, the Utah Board of Education on Friday unanimously approved a position statement supporting the continued exclusive teaching of evolution in state classrooms.

When someone comes up with a good workable scientific theory that explains the origin of species, then I'll bite, and promote that it be taught as an "alternative theory" in science classrooms.

Keep religious dogma out of science classrooms.

/ID believer who DOESN'T want ID taught in science classrooms as a "theory". Because it's not a bloody scientific theory.
//surprised that this came from Utah
 
2005-09-03 08:19:24 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: Most people knew the Earth was round. If you didn't you were pretty dumb even by the standards in the early Rennaissance.

yah, it was round, but there was this amazing waterfall off of one side that had monsters running around all over the place.

i wonder if any of them were noodley.
 
2005-09-03 08:24:02 PM  
 
2005-09-03 08:24:13 PM  
"Legitimacy is not determined by public opinion polls, radio and TV talks shows, privately published books and, most certainly, not by legislation," said Richard Tolman, a professor of biology and science education at Utah Valley State College.

I want to buy this man a shot of Cuervo.
 
2005-09-03 08:25:12 PM  
orion_blastar:

Evolution does not say that there is no God, and that living beings have no soul, etc. It doesn't even mention those things at all. It does not even say where life originally came from.

Absolutely true, you have a good grasp of the scope and nature of evolutionary theory.

The main problem that Christians have is that some Athiests use Evolution to prove there is no God, and no soul or spirit in living things, and try to teach that in a classroom.

Ah, yes. It does seem to follow from Occam's Razor though: when you have a reasonable explanation for the current state of things, there isn't any need to involve God at all. While there are still gaps for God to fit in (origin of life, origin of the universe, etc.) as more and more of these gaps are closed (and the religious are shown to be wrong each time), religious claims lose credibility.

It's not evolution that leads to a rejection of religion, it's the exposure of the ignorance of religious doctrine and holy texts that causes a rejection of religion.
 
2005-09-03 08:25:41 PM  
Evolutionism can't explain homosexuality.

Actually, it can. If you look at it on a primitive societal level (i.e., the tribe or small community, before modern cites, etc), homosexuals contribute resources to society without expending resources on offspring. Plus, in our society, homosexuals may adopt children, which will probably be better for the child than foster care. It is possible to argue that a society with homosexuals is more likely to prosper.
 
Displayed 50 of 445 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report