Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 78230

People who ascribe to intelligent design believe that it is no accident that our kind of life could only occur when the temperature, rainfall and everything else was exactly right on this planet. Intelligent design is a secular interpretation of scientific data — consistent with the Bible but not drawn from it.

There are numerous other examples of intelligent design in the origin and development of our universe. But the scientific evidence points out that our universe was designed for life.

Intelligent design depends on logic from scientific data, for example:

n Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

n The universe began to exist.

n Therefore the universe has a cause.

Every student should be presented with Darwin's theory of evolution and the various theories of intelligent design. Each student has a right to evaluate the evidence and reach his or her own conclusions. That student can conclude that the creation of this universe was blind luck and choose atheism or intelligent design and choose theism. Some may decide to choose neither.

The classroom is no place for people who believe in censorship and don't accept "that whosoever knew the truth, put to worse, a free and open encounter."

Jack Wright, The News Star 69 Comments [12/24/2010 6:58:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 37
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
#1237690
Karana

Ugh. Double post.><

12/24/2010 11:47:56 AM
#1237694
aaa

Typical creationist BS, part 426454536.

12/24/2010 12:24:32 PM
#1237695


"People who ascribe to intelligent design believe that it is no accident that our kind of life could only occur when the temperature, rainfall and everything else was exactly right on this planet. Intelligent design is a secular interpretation of scientific data — consistent with the Bible but not drawn from it.

There are numerous other examples of intelligent design in the origin and development of our universe. But the scientific evidence points out that our universe was designed for life."

There is nothing secular about that interpretation. It requires that something "other", something you have only have faith exists because you have no evidence of it, designed and created the universe. It holds as a central tenet the dogma that a creator exists. Not secular at all.

12/24/2010 12:29:39 PM
#1237696
what???

First, it's bullshit that ID is actual science. Second, most atheists have weighed the evidence in support of ID against evolution and found that ID is bullshit. Third, evolution is not 'blind luck.' It seems that you have not even studied it enough to know what it actually is. So, before you go putting your foot in your ass, I suggest you actually do some reading in evolution before you talk about things you know nothing about.

12/24/2010 12:36:18 PM
#1237697
what???

Then is a class that teaches proper English biased against rednecks? Should we teach their variety of English, too? Just as there are laws to the proper usage of the English language, which fundies are obviously unaware of, there are proper laws to biology, and science in general. And your god is not needed for either.

12/24/2010 12:40:29 PM
#1237702
Zeus Almighty

"n Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

n The universe began to exist.

n Therefore the universe has a cause."

Thinking: You're not doing it right.


12/24/2010 12:59:34 PM
#1237711
Alleyprowler

The nitwits who believe that the universe was "designed for life" need to be shot into space without any protective gear.

12/24/2010 1:34:28 PM
#1237712
Alpha_Omega

I don't think this is fundie. Although his points are technically disagreeable, he has a very open attitude toward the different points of view and believes in allowing students to make independent conclusions and chains of thought, which is an important aspect of education that fundies repress.

12/24/2010 1:40:00 PM
#1237715
dionysus

People who ascribe to intelligent design believe that it is no accident that our kind of life could only occur when the temperature, rainfall and everything else was exactly right on this planet. Intelligent design is a secular interpretation of scientific data — consistent with the Bible but not drawn from it.

And you see, I don't get that at all. How can a narrow range of values for the production of life be evidence of intelligent design? Wouldn't it be more intelligent to allow life to thrive in any environment? Imagine how convenient it would be for us if we could simply move to Antarctica without having to bring tons of supplies and start growing crops there or if the Moon could sustain life without the need for space suits and oxygen tanks. We wouldn't have to worry about food or overpopulation for a good long while. And that's just the problem under strict ID, if you're going to bring an omnipotent god into the equation then he'd be able to make life happen under ANY conditions (by definition he'd be able to do that) and so logically no specific set of environmental circumstances can possibly be used as evidence of such a being's intervention. Finally, you're neglecting all of the extremophiles on Earth that function under extreme conditions, some of which are present on other unexplored bodies in space.

Every student should be presented with Darwin's theory of evolution and the various theories of intelligent design.

Yeah, you say that now but I bet if someone came in with a Pagan version of ID or the Flying Spaghetti Monster you'd flip a shit.

Each student has a right to evaluate the evidence and reach his or her own conclusions. That student can conclude that the creation of this universe was blind luck and choose atheism or intelligent design and choose theism. Some may decide to choose neither.

As Mat Dilahunty so eloquently put it: "Everyone has a right to their own opinion but nobody has a right to their own facts.". And I'm sorry, but science does not work the way you are proposing it does. Students (which by definition are not experts) are no more entitled to decide what is and is not science than they are to decide what 2+2 equals. I'd laugh hard though if some students were clever enough to exploit this 'teach the controversy' nonsense so that they could expose it for the sham that it is and hopefully people would get the message when teachers are forced to give students 'A's for obviously retarded answers (like a student deciding that the aforementioned 2+2 is really 6).

12/24/2010 2:24:47 PM
#1237716
Old Viking

The anthropic principle: if things were different, things would be different.

12/24/2010 2:35:05 PM
#1237720
TGRwulf

The problem is ID CAN'T be tested, were as evolution CAN.

12/24/2010 2:54:34 PM
#1237724
Alencon

Ok, one more time. Science has processes and procedures. Briefly, you do the research; you publish your results; you address criticism and questions from knowledgeable peers.

Assuming your hypothesis passes muster, it becomes part of the myriad possibilities that science recognizes as potentially valid.

High school children have neither the knowledge nor the maturity to decide what is good science and what isn't.

The scientific path is open to everyone. if you have something of worth, then follow it. Ignoring you if you don't isn't censorship, it's protecting students from poor science with no evidence to back it up.

12/24/2010 3:39:00 PM
#1237725
Alencon

@ Alpha Omega

Basically, bullshit. This is the "wedge strategy." We don't present the stork as an alternative to sex education and we don't present Holocaust Denial as an alternative to the real history of WW II.

Why? Because these things are recognized by experts in the field as total crap just as Intelligent Design is recognized by experts in the field as total crap.

So why the hell should we teach it in a science classroom?

12/24/2010 3:43:55 PM
#1237729
GodotIsWaiting4U

No one debates the fact that the universe had a cause.

You just don't have any evidence that the cause was a god, or that it was even intelligent at all.

12/24/2010 3:58:34 PM
#1237730
Brenz

The universe DOES have a cause. We're just saying there's no evidence either way for a creator. All we can point to is the empirical evidence for the way in which it came about. Why is this so hard for you to grasp and implicitly mutually exclusive to your creator belief?

The students do NOT have a right to choose their own conclusions as far as testing and establishing the working theory, any more than they have the right to their own system of math. If you want to use base-12, it's your right, but the school's job is to educate you in the commonly held set of facts you'll need to function in the world.

If we were talking about interpreting English lit or even establishing causes of historical events, that's one thing. But you can't just pretend the Big Bang, or whatever we're mistaking for the Big Bang, never existed.

12/24/2010 3:59:06 PM
#1237736
WMDKitty

*sigh*

This shit again?

WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION. WE HAVE THE FACTS. WE WIN.

12/24/2010 4:14:43 PM
#1237740
radda

This argument would make sense if both sides had vast amounts of evidence supporting their respective theories.

Too bad thats not the case :3

12/24/2010 4:35:40 PM
#1237741
Papabear

Cause and effect, but you have the two reversed. Lifeforms evolved to fit the environments available.


Except that interpretation is designed to be consistent with the Bible, which is, in effect, the same as being drawn from the Bible.


No, it shows that life evolved to fit our universe.


Except that is doesn't account for what caused the designer to exist.


The defense will stipulate that the universe began to exist.

The universe had some kind of cause, OK

"Every student should be presented with Darwin's theory of evolution and the various theories of intelligent design."

First, the ToE has come a long way since Darwin. We are grateful for Darwin's work, but he is not the "alpha and omega" of the ToE.

Second, the ToE doesn't deal with the origin of the universe of the beginnings of life, only with the diversity of life.

"Each student has a right to evaluate the evidence and reach his or her own conclusions."

No, they don't. We don't present students with 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 or 6.31. We don't let them decide. We teach students the facts and the best information we have available. The classroom is NOT the place for scientific debate. Labs and scientific, peer-reviewed journals are the place for scientific debate, but then, ID presents no articles in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

"That student can conclude that the creation of this universe was blind luck and choose atheism or intelligent design and choose theism. Some may decide to choose neither."

Not if they want to pass.

"The classroom is no place for people who believe in censorship and don't accept "that whosoever knew the truth, put to worse, a free and open encounter."

We can admit that creationism/ID views exist, but teaching it as a credible idea and letting the students decide, does those students a great disservice.

12/24/2010 4:36:02 PM
#1237747
Pule Thamex

"....consistent with the Bible but not drawn from it."

That's certainly true. Both the Bible and Intelligent Design are massively flawed, both full of errors and both designed for dunderheads and numskulls. No argument, they are certainly consistent in those ways, as well as they are in their ability to delude. Intelligent Design may not have been drawn from the Bible, but it was drawn from someone's back passage in a pretty poor attempt at supporting the Bible, also known as the User Manual for Bigots. Also known as 'the Bible, the Loser Manual For Modernity'

12/24/2010 5:55:36 PM
#1237748
feralboy12

Jack, you should take this "first cause" idea over to some of the big atheist blogs like Pharyngula and leave comments there. They haven't heard this one before. I'm sure you'll change a lot of minds.

12/24/2010 6:14:46 PM
#1237751
Shax

Each student has a right to evaluate the evidence and reach his or her own conclusions.

There are people who believe the Holocaust never happened. Should we present both sides of the controversy in high school? There are people who believe that disease is caused solely by human sin. Should we teach THAT controversy? What about the people who believe that the earth is at the center of the universe and that everything else in creation revolves around it? Do we let students make up their minds about THAT, too?

High school isn't the place to have that debate. Since we don't let students decide for themselves if mathematics is real or not, you can take your creationism and put it where the sun doesn't shine.


12/24/2010 6:45:49 PM
#1237755
Shanya Almafeta

As far as I know, quantum physics dictate that things come into existance deterministically, based on chance. Cause and effect only applies to larger-scale physics.

12/24/2010 7:34:05 PM
#1237757
Berny

The problem with your hypothesis that everything that exists has to have had a designer is that it has to include the designer.
Who created God?

12/24/2010 7:44:46 PM
#1237758
Nowonmai

Intelligent Design is just Bible Creationism wearing a different suit. And since force feeding other peoples children with your brand of insanity is against the lawy, you FAIL!

12/24/2010 7:47:19 PM
#1237763
Porky Pine

Go to the page and look at his picture. He's the sourest looking dick I ever saw.

12/24/2010 9:16:00 PM
1 2 3