Friday, August 5, 2005

A Quick One for Friday Night

Lots of talk on the blogs about Bush saying that schools should teach "intelligent design." Well, simply put, Bush is wrong. More accuratetly, Bush is a vile idiot who is thoroughly corrupt, but that's another story.

As for "intelligent design" being taught in school, the fundamentalist wackos need to quit the bullshit double-speak and tell the truth. They want to replace contemporary science with ancient religion. They paid a lot of money to the Bush campaign to buy themselves another president, and they want their pound of flesh. Sure, they can dress it up in lofty pseudo-scientific catchphrases like "intelligent design" all they want, but they can't hide their intentions from those of us who pay attention.

They always try (and succeed, I guess) to portray biology and genetics as "Darwin's theory of evolution," repeating as often as they can their talking point that evolution is a "theory." What pea-brained moron buys this swill? Here is the truth: Darwin's theory of evolution was a theory a hundred years ago. It stopped being a theory a long time ago. The process he described, natural selection, has already been proven through observation. There is no longer a question of theory. It is reality. So, fundamentalists: fucking deal with it.

Besides, natural selection does not stand in opposition to religion, it only attempts to describe the process. But our president is bought and paid for by fundamentalist wacko bible-literalists. The American taliban. Do you want these people controling your president (1, 2, 3)?

Religion and science are two different things. To blur the distinction between them is bad for both. We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here. Teach science in school and religion in church, or in a theology class. What's wrong with that? It works better. Besides, most people who hear or read something about the teaching-intelligent-design-in-school issue probably think that "intelligent design" means their religion... but what religion is that?

Fundamentalists, Republicans, Neocons, Bushites, I ask you: Are you going to teach creation beliefs from all of these religions? Because if you don't, then you are total hypocrites! Leave no child left behind: offer a thorough theological philosophy class, or nothing at all. Try to cram fundamentalist christianity down our childrens' throats, and they will grow to despise you and your religion.


Unadulterated Underdog said...

As a journalist I wrote several articles about ID and interviewed many believers and I can tell you, its crappo that's whacko. ID is simply a revamped Creation Theory excluding God's name. It's bogus because it A) Insults God and B) ignores that fact that science has proven itself valid. I also like to point out that if the ConnedServatives weren't so pig-headed, they would see that the Creation Theory AND Evolution Theory go together. Ah well. Once a right-wing radical always a right-wing radical.

SheaNC said...

Exactly! That's what I keep trying to tell them, too: that science does not claim that there is no "God", it only attempts to discover the processes by which life developed. The only conflict is for the bible-literalists who insist that Genesis is to be accepted verbatim. I guess they are the ones who fear the knowledge.

Sar said...

At what point do small minds get so small they implode? They're one huge step closer with this latest crap.

jackmercer said...


A little disappointed in this post. Not very objective, and a tinged biased.

One can't read a bunch of biased internet articles about a topic and come to an informed and absolute conclusion. I have read prominent scientist who says that the injection of intelligence into the origins equation offers unique and valid opportunities of study. Then there are others who dismiss it outright. Isn't education about throwing it all on the table and sorting it out? Or do we already have all the answers.


SheaNC said...

Jack, first of all, of course I'm biased - we all are (even you). I've studies enough psychology to know that.

Second, you need to understand that the source of my knowledge is not just "a bunch of biased internet articles." I have explored biology, astronomy, etc., as well as philosphy and religion. I stand by my assertion that religion is (as the church fathers determined) purely faith-based and has not been proven empirically. If a scientist or a theologist chooses to make that attempt, then it becomes an "-ology" - a field of study - but until proof is made, God remains a mythological figure.

Again, as I keep pointing out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... biology (what the right refers to as "evolution") does NOT say that there is no god. It only attempts to explain the process of the development of life and its diversity.

You ask, " we already have all the answers?" No, we don't but the knowledge we do have through scientific observation is still going to be there whether one denies its existence or not.

Jack Mercer said...

I agree about bias, Shea. But bias in science is something that should be removed. When it comes to science, I am a purist. For example, I believe that the search is not over until every closet is looked in. Until the answer is found, then every possibility needs to be entertained. Science acknowledges for example, that "intelligence in relationship to self-awareness" cannot fully be explained. We can build huge computers with as processing power as the human brain, but artificial intelligence is still just science fiction. Intelligence is also more than just a cause and effect relationship, or chemical response to stimuli. Science is too young to understand the concept of intelligence and self-awareness, and I think that entertaining the possibility of the origins of intelligence being tied up in something and then testing it (scientific methodology), is better than throwing up our hands and saying--well, that just advocating religion so we shouldn't study it.

Over on the NL's site I posted a link that gives essays pro and con. The problem I see in anyone dealing with the topic is they approach it from a position of distain rather than seriously entertaining the possibility. The bias against it is evident, so it will be like most progress man step forward, two back.


Nedhead said...

Jack, I don't think that science, as a general rule, says anything concrete about a higher power. If anything, it continues to reveal the possiblity of there actually being one. And I also think that most the most vocal, biased and vehement opinions regarding evolution come from religious extremists.

There are too many ministers in my family (Methodist, Presbyterian, Unitarian (I think)). Some are more liberal than others, but all accept evolution and believe it to be a very rational possibility, with empirical proof. Yet, these are very devout men, and not an ounce of their faith is shaken or threatened by evolution. In fact, they are dismayed at how too many religious zealots make such a big deal about this matter.

This all stems from a literalist interpretation of the bible, in my poorly supported opinion. Something that is, and does, lead to such "big" debacles. Anytime a group of people put absolute faith in the literal word of any document, dangerous situations occur. That is why most people refer to "interpretations" of the bible.

turk fowler said...

I agree with sheanc on this one, science is something that can be reproduced like the origins of life. I have personally seen a chain of organic matter machine stores popping up all over San Diego. ID, how rediculous! If there was intelligent design I would have read about it in the anti-intelligent design periodicals. I have yet to see any intelligence so far! Take that,God.
Oh great, I just lost my Karma spoon in my primordial soup.

SheaNC said...

Jack: "When it comes to science, I am a purist. For example, I believe that the search is not over until every closet is looked in. Until the answer is found, then every possibility needs to be entertained."

Jack, there comes a time when the answer is found. But it sounds like you would rather ignore the answer and keep looking in closets until you find an "answer" that fits your plan. Just because you want the answer to be a particular thing, does not mean the real answer is invalid. You can wish for things to be a certain way, but reality is what it is.

By your logic, no scientific fact is true unless it has your approval. Why would you need to seek God beyond your own god-like power over reality?