|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Brent's Tirade Against Intelligent Design
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Brent's Tirade Against Intelligent Design
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Revolution9 |
I read with great interest Brent's tirade against his high school district for considering Intelligent Design as a formidable argument against evolution. Good for you Brent! I'm right there with you.
However, your argument lacks merit. Let me point out some things to you in your letter:
---
Dear Ms. Bostock,
I feel the need as someone who graduated from Northeast High School to write you and point out the inaccuracies of your statement about “Intelligent Design”:
“The entire theory of evolution is not scientific fact. Intelligent design balances it out.” — Nancy Bostock, Chairperson
You could not be more incorrect. Evolution is not a theory like a detective on the police force who is investigating a crime. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is HIGHER on the ladder of truth than FACT is.
Wrong bro - a theory is a postulation waiting for evidence to prove it a fact.
A scientific theory is careful observation of facts;
Yo, many scientific theories are conclusions drawn from other theories, where facts may be absent. Stuff like 'black holes', 'quantum physics', etc. are theories based on other theories. Greatest theory of all is the big bang theory, it's based on theories brought on by observations of properties and other theories (doppler effect, echoes of an expanding universe, etc.)
many facts put together make up a scientific theory. A fact is something that is supported by irrefutable evidence. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
To make my point even more clear to you, GRAVITY is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY it has been tested and confirmed over and over. Are you going to tell me GRAVITY is just a theory? No of course not. In scientific terms you are doing exactly that as it relates to evolution. Ms. Bostock our children are already woefully uneducated in the area of science for you to introduce them to something that is not even a hypothesis (an educated guess) as science in any way is immoral and self serving to your personal religious beliefs.
You're making a wrong conclusion about gravity. Even Isaac Newton knew his observations and 'theories' were incomplete, and those initial theories are being discarded. Gravity is a religious belief. There is no theory that includes universal gravity. Gravity, some may think, is a property that is inherent to another dimension, and simply bleeds into our dimension. Check this out: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm. Gravity has been tested, but not confirmed.
There is no credible scientist that teaches “Intelligent Design” because it IS NOT science in any sense of the word. Do yourself a favor and try to find ONE public university where these children aspire to matriculate that teaches “Intelligent Design” as science. You won’t find one, as it is complete and utter nonsense.
Again, your argument is false. There are scientists who consider Intelligent Design to be as credible as evolution. They deal with their own facts and beliefs, and add it to the mix. You're dissing credible, educated men. Unfortunately, the broad that wants to introduce Intelligent Design into high school curriculum has an agenda - she wants to create a back door to creationism and her own religious beliefs. I could Google scientists who believe in creationism or I.D., but I think you get my argument.
Thank you for your time, and let’s not make the science classroom a Southern Baptist revival tent.
Good way to end it. On that we agree.
Sincerely,
Brent L. Hatley
Northeast High School Graduate 1989
(any marks that want to flame me - go fuck yourself) |
|
|
| catdr9155 |
| wow.. I think I just postulated meself. :nixon: |
|
|
| bm311x |
| Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Simply amazing and he touches on this subject quite a bit. |
|
|
| Revolution9 |
| Check out this DVD: "What the Bleep - Down the Rabbit Hole" - There's some good stuff on that shiz. Worst thing about the movie is that they made Marlee Maitlin look like a real schlub - and she's hawwttttt. Although last time I saw her was on the first season of West Wing. Maybe she hit the wall, gravity style? |
|
|
| Revolution9 |
Quote: Originally posted by bm311x
Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Simply amazing and he touches on this subject quite a bit. |
I liked him on Family Feud.
Dawkins is a bit of a wanker with his militant atheism. I haven't read the God Delusion (I will, thanks for the recommendation) - but you gotta read his book The Selfish Gene.
Haven't read it in years, but I'm gonna pick it up again. |
|
|
| Bariztr |
The whole basis of ID is a supernatural cause=GOD. There is no fuckin' science behind it. Read Kitzmiller v. Dover where a federal judge found that ID is a religious belief and not founded in science. Anyone who thinks ID is a legit science is clearly a retard.
These fools spout wrongheaded claims of what "fact" and "theory" mean within the context of science. I will leave this with a quote from Steven Gould:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." |
|
|
| Revolution9 |
I agree with you - ID is an advertising campaign for the religious right's view of God. To my thinking, it doesn't make sense in my world. However, there are learned people (we'll call them religious nuts) who make a case for it. I don't buy it. I put my eggs in the evolution basket.
But, I think as a society we've got to allow other opinions. I say teach creationism, but not in a public school. Separation of church and state is the best argument against it. The second best argument is that creationism has been pretty much torn apart by reason.
There are a lot of faulty premises and programs being taught in public schools: Abstinence over protection being one of the biggies. Have all information available and if you've raised a free-thinker then they'll weed through the bullshit.
Now back to three finger culdesac jones shit. |
|
|
| hanzosteel |
Ask any proponent of ID to tell you the conditions under which they would reject the theory of "intelligent design" - they won't be able to. It is a a pre-determined conclusion.
This is the opposite of science. They shouldn't even be allowed to use the word science, nevermind teach it as one. |
|
|
| TopContender |
| Why can't you believe in both? Why can't you believe that God put everything in motion so that evolution could happen? Instead of using science to disprove that God doesn't exist, why not use science to see God? |
|
|
| soIsezto'emIsez |
Quote: Originally posted by TopContender
Why can't you believe in both? Why can't you believe that God put everything in motion so that evolution could happen? Instead of using science to disprove that God doesn't exist, why not use science to see God? |
It's a never ending argument. Why use science or anything else to see God? |
|
|
| Revolution9 |
Quote: Originally posted by TopContender
Why can't you believe in both? Why can't you believe that God put everything in motion so that evolution could happen? Instead of using science to disprove that God doesn't exist, why not use science to see God? |
Sometime's it's the simplest answer. I think you hit it. Who the fuck lit the fuse for the big bang? |
|
|
| TopContender |
Here is the reason why I made my comment.
Georges Henri Joseph Éduard Lemaître (July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer.
Fr. (later Msgr.) Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.
It was a Roman Catholic priest that proposed Big Bang, not some regular scientist. Lemaître felt that he could use science to see God, not disprove he exist. |
|
|
| bubba4pres |
| I would like to know from all of you who don't believe that God exist or believe in evolution....Who created the apes that we supposedly came from? Something started the process so what do you believe did that? |
|
|
| Dralix |
Quote: Originally posted by bubba4pres
I would like to know from all of you who don't believe that God exist or believe in evolution....Who created the apes that we supposedly came from? Something started the process so what do you believe did that? |
Just because I don't have the answer to something doesn't mean I need to make up a god to explain it.
In ancient times, people made up gods to explain things like why the sun rose in the day and set at night. Today we make up gods to explain the origin of the universe.
That's not what I call progress. |
|
|
| sidgautama |
Sure we can use science to explain the existence of god....just pull out some of that little thing called "scientific evidence"!
After reading Christopher Hitchens its pretty clear that god is made in mans image, and not the other way around, at least to me! |
|
|
| bryanrules0000 |
god i think religion is absolutely disgusting. maqybe there is a god.. who fuckin knows... NONE OF US!
the bible is fake. all of it is complete crap.. it took me going to catholic high school and studying about the religion to realize how bullshit and manmade it is. soo many human flaws in the whole thing.
i hate that our country is full of religious fucks. i cant wait for the day we get a athiest president. that will be the first day i vote.
what i hate the most is preachers and people who are spreading the word. I think religion is the world's poison. it WILL distroy all of us eventually.
Fuck you jesus! :D |
|
|
| bryanrules0000 |
Quote: Originally posted by Dralix
Just because I don't have the answer to something doesn't mean I need to make up a god to explain it.
In ancient times, people made up gods to explain things like why the sun rose in the day and set at night. Today we make up gods to explain the origin of the universe.
That's not what I call progress. |
right on the money! religion is fueled by ignorance and stupidity. i
honestly think people are stupid for beliving in religion. there is alot of unknowns in this world. as far as why we are here in this earth and all that stuff. who the fuck knows.... i could guess can say God made us... but there is jsut as much evidence to say we were created by a bunch of gay aliens who only wear mesh shirts and old spice cologne.... why? cuz they are both made up.
i belive in science. i believe in humans using their brains to solve the world's mysteries... not fairtales. and i extend my thoughts to ALL religions.
the think i really hate also is how religion has hyjacked morality. i dont need to belive in god to be moral. |
|
|
| Revolution9 |
Quote: Originally posted by bryanrules0000
Fuck you jesus! :D |
Even though I don't subscribe to that religion, I know a douchebag when I see one.
Or read one. |
|
|
| hanzosteel |
Quote: Originally posted by TopContender
Instead of using science to disprove that God doesn't exist, why not use science to see God? |
Because that is not what science is for. |
|
|
| hanzosteel |
Quote: Originally posted by Revolution9
Sometime's it's the simplest answer. I think you hit it. Who the fuck lit the fuse for the big bang? |
We as a species hunger for explanations to things we don't understand. When we didn't understand earthquakes and floods, we explained it with "God". Fast forward a couple thousand years and astronomy replaces astrology, chemistry replaces alchemy, and philosophy replaces religion*.
Your question is a 21st century equivalent of asking why crops are ravaged by locusts.
*paraphrased from Hitchens |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
Quote: Originally posted by sidgautama
Sure we can use science to explain the existence of god....just pull out some of that little thing called "scientific evidence"!
After reading Christopher Hitchens its pretty clear that god is made in mans image, and not the other way around, at least to me! |
Is it true that the requirement for readings Hitchens book is that you have to be as drunk as he was when he wrote it?
And instead of posting a letter to Brent here where there about a 100 to 1 chance he will read it and a about a million to one chance he would ever admit coming here have you heard of that newfangled concept called electronic mail? Trust Me Brent will be more than happy to argue with you all day and night on email. Ive had long email discussions with him on different things. Some of them as the show is actually going on. |
|
|
| hanzosteel |
Quote: Originally posted by WillowGlen
Is it true that the requirement for readings Hitchens book is that you have to be as drunk as he was when he wrote it?
|
No but it is true that he loves it when people bring up his alcoholism; it is usually a sign that he is winning the argument. :D |
|
|
| papajayzel |
| brent, philosophically is not very deep. funny guy though! just not into his rants. i would definitely have him over for christmas dinner, as long as he kept his shoes on :P |
|
|
| ogmaster |
Quote: Originally posted by Revolution9
Sometime's it's the simplest answer. I think you hit it. Who the fuck lit the fuse for the big bang? |
You can totally believe in both. But there's nothing scientific about ID. Astronomers have been seeing Big Bang type stuff for the last few years and seeing new stars being created. Care to show me some scientific proof that there's something creating more planets out there? In the end, Brent is wrong that a scientific theory is not a fact because it has something that cant make it fact. However, to be a scientific theory it has to be agreed upon that while it's not a fact, it's also not false. There's nothing scientific about ID and if people insist on teach it, it should take about 10 seconds "God made stuff. If you want to learn more, read a bible. The end." |
|
|
| redjack99 |
The “Perfect” Evolution vs I.D. Debate
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullsh*t sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist: (turning to audience) And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments, which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullsh*t; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
ID is a lot of things: mythology, religious allegory, and above all else baseless horse-shit. The one thing it isn't, is science. |
|
|
| Kdrunkin1 |
Quote: Originally posted by bryanrules0000
i hate that our country is full of religious fucks. i cant wait for the day we get a athiest president. that will be the first day i vote.
:D |
I suppose you could always move to China to "VOTE" as they have an atheist government. That being said people can believe in religion if they like as long as they don't try to ram it down my throat. ;) |
|
|
| Gator_Russ |
Theorums > Theories > Facts
Jeeze. Was I the only guy that paid attention in 6th grade science? |
|
|
|
|
|
