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.

(The Register)   Pennsylvania FSM trial winds up. Noodly Appendage did not take stand   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 383
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

13888 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Nov 2005 at 3:26 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-07 03:50:06 PM  


Can't believe no ones posted this yet.
 
2005-11-07 03:51:12 PM  
Obligatory:

 
2005-11-07 03:51:37 PM  
VTSquire - I agree with mattbin and others. If ID could stand on it's own legs from a scientific vantage, then by all means, include it. The problem is that it has no real scientific merit and thus is not worthy of comparison.
 
2005-11-07 03:51:54 PM  
I want to know when schools are going to start teaching my theory of UD (Unintelligent Design). If life was created by some supernatural being, a quick look at our natural world and the life that inhabits it does not reflect particularly well on the intelligence of that being. Frankly I'd be pretty embarassed if I were a god and this was what I came up with. Design? Perhaps. Intelligent? No freaking way.
 
2005-11-07 03:52:33 PM  


/Bevets doesn't believe in flu shots
 
2005-11-07 03:52:53 PM  
VTSquire, I doubt anyone here has a problem with the Christian creation story being taught in Comparative Religion. However teaching it in Biology class in another matter, not only unscientific but unconstitutional as well.

Teaching kids ID alongside evolution does not "equip them with critical thinking skills", it misrepresents a religious belief as having the status of a scientific theory. There's no actual evidence FOR an intelligent creator (no, "irreducible complexity" is NOT such evidence), therefore ID is not science.
 
2005-11-07 03:55:46 PM  
Thanks, RocketRay. It doesn't look like it's necessary though, the Big B seems to have performed a drive-by commenting today.
 
2005-11-07 03:56:39 PM  
Why not teach all points of view? Why not teach the controversy and let the students decide?
 
2005-11-07 03:57:03 PM  
VTSquire: You know... for all the people who flame on intelligent design theory, I can't help but think that they're missing something when they make their judgement. The goal of any education is not to promote a singular view, but equip students with critical thinking skills.

Depends on the level of the education. We don't teach primary students unsupportable information because, frankly, at that point they lack the ability to make such discernments. In primary school, you learn that Columbus discovered America. In secondary school, you learn that Vikings settled at Newfoundland, but failed to establish a permanent presence. In college you learn of a whole series of contacts between the Americas and Eurasia, of varying degrees of believability and importance, and that the incorporation of the Americas into the European culture arose from Columbus' voyage, even though he was not the first voyager from that land, nor the most complete, having never set foot on the American mainland.

In short, you want to discuss the merits of a purely hypothetical supernatural agent guiding life on Earth, do it in college, where there are plenty of courses providing this sort of debate. Or even in a secondary school philosophy class. It doesn't belong in a primary or secondary school science class.
 
2005-11-07 03:57:19 PM  
borednaked presents:
Parent Kettle Black - The Intelligent Design Conundrum

So..."Intelligent Design" eh? I would have called it "Meeting Your Maker 101." That's a name the kids can get into. It's got moxy.

But theriouthly folkth...people are definitely looking at this with a focus that is far too narrow. The problem lies with the parents. The days of eating your meat to get that sweet, sweet pudding and just going about your business none the wiser is over. It's not 1950 anymore.
If you, as a parent, do not teach your children how to be skeptical and form their own opinions, it doesn't matter what they learn in school.
Intelligent Design (ID) has creationism under its umbrella. So what? Couldn't ID also mean Aliens created us? Or perhaps an ancient race of earth-dwellers with vast powers beyond our comprehension. None of these has more merit than the others. Here's hoping little Sally and Johnny bring them up in the face of more popular ID theories.

It's SCIENCE people, it's supposed to be EXPERIMENTAL. Let ID into the classes, and see where the kids go with it! Maybe a new branch of study will emerge, perhaps little Sally will grow up and prove something we never thought possible.

My main point is that we need to be open to new ideas and changing already established ones. Humanity is getting too big for its mental shell, and we're trying to keep it in there. This is a big reason why society is starting to crumble.
 
2005-11-07 03:57:27 PM  
Javacrucian: "its" not "it's". hth.

bevets: Please stop. You convince no one.
 
2005-11-07 03:57:58 PM  
Any defense that states that Intelligent Design is in any way a "Paradigm Shift" in science can't stand a chance, assuming an unbiased judge.

Let the kids who believe this shiat believe it - They are pretty unlikely to go on to become advanced scientists. The ones who do will be smart enough to see through it, and like the rest of good science, largely ignore the entire ID hypothesis for lack of testable evidence and get on with the progress of science.
 
2005-11-07 03:58:26 PM  
I can't believe people still try to argue with Bevets.
 
2005-11-07 03:58:29 PM  
SkinnyHead: Why not teach all points of view? Why not teach the controversy and let the students decide?


'cause it is taught. Evolution (science) is taught in Science Class, Creationism (ID) is taught in church. Both right were they belong.
 
2005-11-07 03:59:08 PM  
are taught, I mean.
 
2005-11-07 04:00:15 PM  
Dil Doe: I want to know when schools are going to start teaching my theory of UD (Unintelligent Design). If life was created by some supernatural being, a quick look at our natural world and the life that inhabits it does not reflect particularly well on the intelligence of that being. Frankly I'd be pretty embarassed if I were a god and this was what I came up with. Design? Perhaps. Intelligent? No freaking way.


 
2005-11-07 04:00:36 PM  
SkinnyHead

There should be no 'teaching of the controversy' decause there is no controversy between ID and Evolution. Evolution is accepted by close to 99% of biologists. It's a stupid meme, started by who else, but the 'Dicovery Institute'.
 
2005-11-07 04:00:39 PM  
VTSquire
Yadda yadda, kids need to be taught critical thinking, yadda yadda

That's great. However, when you promote something that is unscientific as being as valid as a scientific theory, then you're dooming kids from the start. Just because evolution has a few holes in it does not automatically make Intelligent Design valid. Intelligent Design needs to be proven on its own merits. Since it cannot be proven, then it is not scientific. And I'm okay with people believing it, but it's not supposed to be taught in science class.

Quantum Mechanics has a few incosistencies, but you shouldn't teach Magic Fairy Mechanics alongside, just because some people think that the electromagnetic force is caused by fairies, even if those people are in the majority.

Part of critical thinking is to take each idea on its merits, not to take weaknesses in one idea as strengths of a competing idea.
 
2005-11-07 04:01:41 PM  
Dear Bevets: are you aware that not even the Vatican agrees with Intelligent Design?
 
2005-11-07 04:02:46 PM  
Why not put the matter to a vote and let the people decide? Public opinion polls show that Darwinism is an extremist point of view, far from the mainstream. Only 13% of Americans believe in atheistic evolutionism. (See: Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution.)
 
2005-11-07 04:02:52 PM  
SkinnyHead: Why not teach all points of view? Why not teach the controversy and let the students decide?

Meh, this is the part of the thread where everyone comes in with something everyone's already been over without reading the posts before it. I'm going to go create something of my own.
 
2005-11-07 04:02:56 PM  
so, does this bevets open his mouth in other threads, too?
 
2005-11-07 04:03:56 PM  
borednaked: It's SCIENCE people, it's supposed to be EXPERIMENTAL. Let ID into the classes, and see where the kids go with it! Maybe a new branch of study will emerge, perhaps little Sally will grow up and prove something we never thought possible.

My main point is that we need to be open to new ideas and changing already established ones. Humanity is getting too big for its mental shell, and we're trying to keep it in there. This is a big reason why society is starting to crumble.


No, its not science. Because as you said its supposed to be experimental, however, there is no experiment. There is no testable way to demonstrate ID and thus does not belong in science classes.

This was the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is as much evidence to support FSM as there is ID.
 
2005-11-07 04:04:30 PM  
From TFA

"Meanwhile on Thursday, the Vatican issued a statement warning against ignoring scientific reason, saying that by doing so, religion risks turning into fundamentalism. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture said: "The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future."

That's right, kids -- the Vatican just came out against intelligent design.
 
2005-11-07 04:05:40 PM  
SkinnyHead

Because science is not a democratic process!
You're really living up to your name.
 
2005-11-07 04:06:04 PM  
People, please DO NOT FEED THE BEVETS!
 
2005-11-07 04:06:13 PM  
SkinnyHead: Why not put the matter to a vote and let the people decide? Public opinion polls show that Darwinism is an extremist point of view, far from the mainstream. Only 13% of Americans believe in atheistic evolutionism. (See: Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution.)

No - we're not a democracy. Under your way of thinking, miscegenation would still be a hanging offense. Some basic issues are simply not up for vote.
 
2005-11-07 04:06:56 PM  
Educated_Comedian: That's right, kids -- the Vatican just came out against intelligent design.

Welcome to 20 years ago. :)
 
2005-11-07 04:06:56 PM  
Another book that supports intelligent design

Interestingly, this book was not on Phyllis Schlafly's list of Most Harmful Books; somehow Silent Spring beat it out. I suppose the fact that Turner Diaries supports the notion of creationism has something to do with that?
 
2005-11-07 04:07:18 PM  
SkinnyHead

Why not put the matter to a vote and let the people decide? Public opinion polls show that Darwinism is an extremist point of view, far from the mainstream. Only 13% of Americans believe in atheistic evolutionism.

Back in the 15th century, people thought the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that the sun went around the earth. Heliocentrism was an "extremist point of view" that was "far from the mainstream." Nowadays, people take for granted that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa. Does this mean that, at some magical point between then and now, the Earth stopped being the center of the universe? Of course not. It was never the center of the universe, and it has always revolved around the sun.

The Moral of the Story: Just because something is popular doesn't make it true, and just because something is true doesn't make it popular.
 
2005-11-07 04:07:20 PM  
Foaming
Couldn't aliens have Intelligently Designed us? I'm pretty sure I'd frame ID as a UFO theory if I were forced to teach it.


(from previous thread on ID)
 
2005-11-07 04:07:36 PM  
Skinnyhead

Why not teach all points of view? Why not teach the controversy and let the students decide?

There's a lot of points of view. Are we to give every wacky moonbat position out there equal footing in a scientific forum? In my opinion, the more science moves forward and the more I hear from the ID proponents, the more creationism/ID appears as one of those wacky moonbat positions.
 
2005-11-07 04:08:12 PM  
gnosis301: so, does this bevets open his mouth in other threads, too?

Good lord, no. He's so effective at winning these arguments and converting heathens to brainless fundamentalist christianity, that he has no need to visit other threads.

Plus, quote-mining is pretty tough -- you've got to strip away all the context.

/Mine on, you crazy Bevets!
 
2005-11-07 04:08:23 PM  
SkinnyHead

Why not put the matter to a vote and let the people decide? Public opinion polls show that Darwinism is an extremist point of view, far from the mainstream. Only 13% of Americans believe in atheistic evolutionism. (See: Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution.)

Let me introduce you to my good friends argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad populum.
 
2005-11-07 04:08:38 PM  
Bevets I've previously accused you of being some jackoff with a random bible quotes generator. I now think of you as Landover Baptist without the humor.
/ bet I'm getting closer
 
2005-11-07 04:08:51 PM  


Obligatory Melissa shot proving evolution AND the presence of a devine creator.

/let the fapping commence
 
2005-11-07 04:09:10 PM  
Bevets
If one is science, both are. If one is not science, neither is the other one.

As has been pointed out, there is nothing scientific about ID. That said, I read a recent news article on this topic that cited a study which categorized 79% of adult Americans as "scientifically illiterate". Sadly, most Americans would listen to someone like Bevets and buy into his argument simply because they're too poorly educated to know better.
 
2005-11-07 04:09:14 PM  
someone
There is no testable way to demonstrate ID and thus does not belong in science classes.

Sure there is. Find a fish, and get as many people as possible to pray to whoever they want to turn it into a puppy.

Then you'll prove intelligent design. Just don't hold your breath.
 
2005-11-07 04:12:27 PM  
Sorry I digressed. I logged on to say the FSM was mildly amusing for 10 minutes. (Hell, make it 10 days...)
Give it a rest.
 
2005-11-07 04:14:02 PM  
Ahh, Bevets, what fark religious thread would be complete without him?

That being said, whatever happened to Mike_71?
 
2005-11-07 04:14:03 PM  
Jesusland is the laughing stock of the world.
 
2005-11-07 04:14:38 PM  
Action Replay Nick: Awesome, yet another made-up term. "Evolutionism". That's f*cking classic.

Note that the CBS Poll I cited uses the term "evolutionism"
Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.
 
2005-11-07 04:15:42 PM  
Zyklon B. Goode: FSM was mildly amusing for 10 minutes. (Hell, make it 10 days...) Give it a rest.

I'll shut up about the FSM when the christian fundamentalist idiots stop their little ID joke. You do realise that's what the FSM is about, don't you?
 
2005-11-07 04:16:27 PM  
kliq
That being said, whatever happened to Mike_71?

The last time I saw him post, he called me an "arrogant snake", and I haven't seen him since.
 
2005-11-07 04:17:13 PM  
Why not put the matter to a vote and let the people decide? Public opinion polls show that Darwinism is an extremist point of view, far from the mainstream. Only 13% of Americans believe in atheistic evolutionism. (See: Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution.)

We could put relativity and quantum mechanics up there too, and they'd probably be voted down.

The population in this country is depressingly illiterate when it comes to scientific reason.

Thats why we have the scientific process. It is designed to remove human emotion and opinion that may cloud or bias research. Its gotten us quite far, I hope we dont give up on it now.
 
2005-11-07 04:18:07 PM  
SkinnyHead

Obviously, the author/designer of that specific poll is scientifically illiterate. Not that you are proving yourself to be otherwise.
 
2005-11-07 04:19:48 PM  
I have a theory regarding human evolution. Hot people get laid more, right? And ugly people are therefore less likely to have kids. So doesn't that mean that in a few hundred years, all the women around here are going to be amazingly hot?

/builds time machine
 
2005-11-07 04:19:51 PM  
Bevets [TotalFark]

Here are the transcripts.

Evolutionism and Intelligent Design are two sides of the same origins coin. Evolutionism asserts that a designer is not required for complex functional systems. Intelligent Design asserts that a designer is required for complex systems. If one is science, both are. If one is not science, neither is the other one.


There are inline skates, and thereare browen inline skates. So if an inline skate exists, then it must be brown, by your same postulation.

I had completely forgotten that common sense has yet to apply to your beliefs.

Would you like to buy some GREEN inline skates?
 
2005-11-07 04:20:16 PM  
Obviously, im not gonna take the time to respond to each of those independantly... but I'll address the overall message being said here that "religion and science have nothing in common".

Frankly, that's a load of bullshiat. If that was the case, there wouldnt be a discussion on the matter. The fact is, as far as the creation of the universe goes, that one explanation is that an intelligent being did something akin to saying "let there be light" while in the other, an infinite void (or sizable object of infinite mass, depending upon who you talk to) spontaneously "let there be a release of energy". I honestly think as far as the creation of things, there's more stuff in common between ID and science than there is different. ID examines the existence and actions of some intelligent being(s), and science examines the mechanics by which said being(s) may have acheieved things. Although, there's much more to it than just that.

One person I will address specifically is Sloth_dc. Now, we certainly do present kids with more options and challenges as they get older and more mature, but that shouldnt preclude bringing more options or critical thinking skills in at a younger age.

Im all for ensuring we don't have any kind of state religion, but there's a broad line between preaching and informing people about the foundations of more than one view. Excluding that which may help to foster a more developed sense of education for the sake of (fill in the________) is pretty contradictory to progress in the education system.
 
2005-11-07 04:21:07 PM  
Of course I realise matt.
/ still not funny
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | 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