January 22, 2005
I like that phrase: "intelligent design." It MEANS that God made you out of a lump of clay and HE made the heavens and the earth, but that's not what it SAYS, so it's much easier to sell than Creationism. I call it intellectual dishonesty.
The fact is that NOBODY KNOWS how we got here, who made the universe and why the world goes 'round. Nobody ever will while we're alive, either. This world is four billion years old. We know that for a fact. If God created man, why did he wait so long and build such shitty early models? (If I were a hot-shot engineer fresh out of God School, I'd expect to do a lot better than that on MY first project.) I never hear Creationists talk about those shortcomings.
If a family wants to teach the Book of Genesis to its children, let them go right ahead. But this crap has no place in public schools. I despise Michael Newdow, but I also believe that teaching Creationism in school is wrong. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is okay. "In God we Trust" on our money is okay. A Prayer at the Inauguration is okay.
Just don't teach the Christian Bible as science. Because it ain't.
Yup, like why are the cones 'n rods in the human eyeball at the *back* of the retina, *behind* the nerves which connect to them, instead of being out in front and more efficient, as I believe is the case in some other species.
That said, I'll prolly always be at least a Deist, occasionaly rising to the level of bad Christian.
I like militant agnosticism: I don't know, and you don't either
Let's see; God created man as a pet, then puts a tree in the garden that contains the knowledge of good and evil. He tells man not to eat from it, but wait! Man doesn't know good and evil, so how should he know that disobeying God is a bad thing? Then, God turns his back and let's Satan corrupt his children and talk them into doing evil. Man disobeys God, and God, who can see the future, gets angry.(?) He kicks man out of the garden and condemns him to eternal suffering for one (1) discretion. He also admits that He doesn't want man to eat of the tree of life, "lest he become as one of us and live forever" or something like that.
Well, apparently after flushing the whole thing in a flood and starting over, God fails again in getting his pet to behave, so thinking that maybe He was too harsh, He comes to earth in human form and commits suicide as a sacrifice to appease himself.
Y'know, every time I prune my blogroll and consider whether or not to keep this here blog linked, you come through with a nice little gem like this.
Actually, there is no accurate scientific proof that the earth is 4 billion years old. Carbon dating is not an exact science, and it is only a *theory* that the earth is billions of years old. If you look at only proveable scientific data.....it appears that the earth is only 10-15 thousand years old. But again, this is a theory.
I think they should be teaching *science* in school, not creation OR evolution. Both are theories. You can twist the scientific data to support either view. I just wish people would realize that there is a big difference between a theory and a proveable fact and teach science that way.
Jesus. You're not a complete idiot afterall. Close, but not quite. Dogsdon'tpurr IS a complete idiot.
The earth is 10,000-15,000 years old?
I call that one a stretch.
Okay, and then how do you explain fossils? And if your "theory" is that the world is 10-15K old, it is certainly no more provable than any other theory!
And as a thought, while I am not for "creationism" in a schools, I do think teaching intelligent design is a good idea. As an ex-husband of mine insisted (notice I called him an "ex"), we could have been left here by aliens. So the idea that a greater being - divine or otherwise - could have put the things together and dropped us off at least gives an opening for creative thinking and debate when looking to defend or strengthen (or debunk) the argument for evolution. With only one theory to scrutinize, students become too one-track-minded.
Sounds like some people need to learn the definition of "Theory:"
- A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
- The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.
In other words, if something is elevated to the level of theory, there's a lot of supporting evidence for it. So called intelligent design (aka Creationism) isn't good enough to be theory.
Yep, frank, some folks don't seem to get the distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis." I come up with really cool hypotheses all the time, and sometimes write about them on other folks' blogs. But am I industrious and sharp enough to make them into actual falsifiable theories, and run experiments, and report my work, and all?
Nah. Hey, I never claimed I wasn't a slacker!
The third post needs to be deleted.
Why can't we just elevate this sort of creationist theory to the same status as things like universal equalitiy and diversity. (I mean, either we are all the same (there is NO diversity) or we are unequal (there IS diversity.) Nobody really believes them, but they sound nice and make us all feel good for a few minutes.
Teaching creationism in the same class as evolution would be so embarrassing to the creationists that they would soon ask to have it stopped.