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

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: 38
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Haseen

Show me an experiment that can actually test intelligent design. Oh right, you can't, because ID is not science!

12/24/2010 7:07:15 AM

GigaGuess

Part 1

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.
Indeed, this is true. Had the conditions have not been right, we would not be here. Since the conditions WERE right, life developed.

Intelligent design is a secular interpretation of scientific data — consistent with the Bible but not drawn from it.
Horseshit. It's Genesis with a sheet placed over top of it. Or are you willing to give equal time to the Norse creation myths, as well as the Greek, Egyptian, etc. etc. etc? If you aren't, well guess what? It just became an effort to foist Christianity on a science class.

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.
Which is why only tiny, tiny pockets of it exist throughout said universe.

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.

So what caused God? He exists...doesn't he?

Every student should be presented with Darwin's theory of evolution and the various theories of intelligent design.
Or...you know...they can learn about Genesis, or whichever creation myth they wish in church. Or do I get to teach your Sunday School classes evolution? So that, y'know, they can get equal time?

12/24/2010 7:12:28 AM

GigaGuess

Part 2

Each student has a right to evaluate the evidence and reach his or her own conclusions.
So, when are we gonna add Alchemy to the chemistry curriculum? Do we permit students to accept Earth, Wind, Water and Fire as elements? Should we teach "Intelligent Falling" alongside gravity?

That student can conclude that the creation of this universe was blind luck and choose atheism or intelligent design and choose theism.
Again, they are free to choose whichever they wish, but keep your religion in your church. The schools are not a place for you to proselytize to our children.

Some may decide to choose neither.
Perhaps so.

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."
No, the classroom is for facts, not nebulous cries of "GODDIDIT!" That is all ID boils down to. There is no falsifiability (Of COURSE it looks that way. God decided to test our faith by making it look false!) no proof (Of course it's fact! It's in the Bible! What more proof do you need?) and certainly not testable (since God seems to have turned off his Prayer Waiting.)

12/24/2010 7:13:00 AM

Doctor Whom

Yes, and since the crack in the sidewalk has the exact shape to fit the puddle, the crack must have been intelligently designed to fit the puddle. Also, as for teaching competing theories, I'll bet you'll change your tune the instant someone brings up the argument from poor design.

12/24/2010 7:17:33 AM

Murdin

n Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

n God the Father The Anonymous Mystery Intelligent Designer That Is Certainly Not Linked To Any Religious Concept began to exist.

n Therefore God the Father The Anonymous Mystery Intelligent Designer That Is Certainly Not Linked To Any Religious Concept has a cause.

What do you mean, "God the Designer exists outside of time" ? Well, so does the Universe. Time is a dimension which only exists within the Universe, after all.


@GigaGuess :


12/24/2010 7:36:43 AM

Brendan Rizzo

You lost me at the first paragraph. I always thought that evolution would explain the fact that "our kind of life could only occur when the temperature, rainfall and everything else was exactly right on this planet." After all, if intelligent design were true and God made humans separate from all other creatures, then he could have given human beings the technology to be able to exist in an environment hostile to life from the get go, to prove that there is no way that we could have evolved naturally on the planet (or deep space, for that matter.) However, since the conditions on Earth are just right for life to exist, that means that it could and did arise naturally, so we are perfectly justified in accepting the mounds of evidence for evolution.

12/24/2010 7:41:12 AM

nazani14

Great, let's allow students to select the kind of spelling and grammar they prefer. All tests are censoring, plain and simple.


12/24/2010 7:51:29 AM



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


And that right must be exercised before they even learn how to reach the right conclusions!

12/24/2010 7:51:53 AM

Doubting Thomas

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.

Right. And if any of those things were different, life would have evolved to be different from what it is now. When creationists use this argument, they're making the wrong assumption that life has always been as it is now and couldn't ever be different.

Intelligent design is a secular interpretation of scientific data

No, scientific theories are a secular interpretation of scientific data. ID has always been found to be a religious idea, or "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

n Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

n The universe began to exist.

n Therefore the universe has a cause.


But that cause isn't proved to be God. It could just as easily be the Big Bang. And I notice how you put the words "begins to exist" in there so you don't have to answer why God wasn't created since you claim he always existed.

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

Except the Supreme Court ruled that ID is religion and can't be taught in schools. Sucks for you, doesn't it? But why not add the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of the creation of the universe, too?

The classroom is no place for people who believe in censorship

Except that the classroom is not and should not be a democracy. To learn anything, students need the authority of a teacher.

12/24/2010 8:07:44 AM

chaosof99

"Intelligent design is a secular interpretation of scientific data"

and later:

"That student can conclude that the creation of this universe was blind luck and choose atheism or intelligent design and choose theism."

Contradiction much? Also, logical fallacy of the excluded middle. There are a lot of theists who also acknowledge evolution, e.g. as the method god used to create the diverse forms of life on earth. But thanks for admitting that intelligent design is inherently a non-secular claim, because that's what it is.

And no, it is not the place for students who neither have the information (which is by far more voluminous than what can be presented in a single course) nor the maturity to decide what is fact and what is not. Nobody has that right. The evidence shows what is fact and what is not and the evidence points to evolution EVERY SINGLE TIME!

12/24/2010 8:09:19 AM

Brain_In_A_Jar

Intelligent design is a secular interpretation of scientific data — consistent with the Bible but not drawn from it.

Technically correct, but for all it tries, and still usually fails, to garb itself in the trappings of science, that interpretation of scientifically obtained data is not itself scientifically valid.

And you're all probably desperately hoping that if you can just make your ramblings tick all the scientific boxes (impossible, btw, because you're just not doing it right), we'll all just conveniently forget that this "non-creationist" argument was cynically formulated to be so by devout creationists, a large proportion of whom don't actually have the slightest respect for scientific thought but, dimly aware that they just can't seem to beat it, treat it as simply another thing to be co-opted and subjugated to support their pre-existing dogma.

I came across a perpetual motion crank today. Just an ordinary, well-meaning guy, without any scientific education, who'd seen that all technology ran on fuel and quite naturally thought "it would be better if we could run stuff without having to put fuel in it." He had this wonderful idea of turning jet engines with electric motors (I'm not even sure if he was aware that electricity has to come from somewhere, which puts him even lower down than those who hug themselves when they hit on yet another variation on the idea of providing the heat input for the engine from its own shaft output). He subsequently insisted that scientists (another characteristic of PM nuts, creationists and the scientifically illiterate in general is that they cannot grasp the distinction between science and engineering) should go about doing this, and decried anyone who gently pointed out to him that the most basic known laws of science absolutely refute the possibility of building a box, no matter how the fuck you design it, that stuff continuously comes out of but nothing ever goes into.

It seems most ID advocates have the same concept of science as the PM guys: it's fucking magic, and it lets you do whatever you want. You want something, you needs only express your will via the right incantation and it will be done. There is nothing science can't do. This is the garbled, grotesquely oversimplified idea of science that trickles down our culture and popular media into the minds of those who haven't actually learned it. The idea that science, this wonderful thing everybody seems to be using a lot these days to do awesome stuff, could actually forbid anything, rather than enable it, is thus confusing to them.

For such people, if one wishes to defy entropy, one simply has to build an engine in just the right way, by Doing Science. If one wishes to prove the universe was created by a sentient being that you are legally obliged to concede could be called something other than god but reserve the right to insist in private that it really is god, one simply has to Do Science and the answer will come out that way.

12/24/2010 8:17:03 AM

John_in_Oz

The classroom is no place for people who believe in censorship

So we should keep out all those fundamentalists who proclaim 'classrooms shouldn't teach that homosexuality is normal'...
Not sure I agree with your argument, but I'm onboard with that corollary.

12/24/2010 8:28:34 AM

The Lie of Jesus

More like Jack Wrong.


12/24/2010 8:35:11 AM

Anon

n Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

n The universe began to exist.

n Therefore the universe has a cause.


Again a Fundie who is too lazy to read about the origins of this "proof", who didn't understand what the author of this deduction really wanted to say, and didn't inform himself about later progresses in philosophy.

The original deduction is usually attributed to Thomas of Aquinas (who himself was inspired by similiar thoughts of Aristotele). This great thinker didn't want to 'proof' God's existence. The existence of God was something which was simply not disputed in medieval ages. Everybody was deeply convinced that God exists. No wonder, the social pressure was overwhelming.

Thomas wanted to give an example of rationality in order to diminish the influence of irrational superstitions which were widespread in his times. He wanted to put the belief in God on some firmer, more rational basis. Thats all.

But these kind of deductions aren't any "proof of God" at all. This was shown very nicely by Immanuel Kant, around 300 years ago from now. Kant simply pointed out the obvious: That all of these "proofs" only say something about what someone believes to be God. It does not say anything at all about any real God.

In the case of the "first cause": The only thing which is proven with that deduction is ... that there is a first cause. Thats all. This whole deduction is only saying something extremly trivial. Nothing more.

Modern science now attributes the "first cause" to the Big Bang. Simply replace "God" with "Big Bang", and one sees immediately the absurdity in the religionist "Proofs of God". For example: "Have you accepted the Big Bang as your personal saviour?" Absurd, isn't it?

All "Proofs of God" fail, inevitably. This is something inherent in the whole method of trying to "proof" God.

12/24/2010 8:42:19 AM

John_in_Oz

I should point out that I ascribe to the theory of Intelligent Design.

I ascribe stupidity, ignorance, special pleading and wilful obtuseness to it. Just like your grammar, since I infer you meant to talk about people who subscribe to it.

12/24/2010 8:49:28 AM

Matante

So kids, if you choose to believe the theory of evolution, you'll have to answer to tests and prove you understand basic biology and a good deal of material actually. On the other hand, if you choose to believe in creation, all you need to pass the class is say "god".
Sure, kids would totally choose fairly when one of the options allows to be utterly lazy.

12/24/2010 8:57:16 AM



Seems reasonable to me. The guy's not forcing his opinion down the throat of others.

12/24/2010 8:58:36 AM

Xotan

Learn the difference between ascribe and subscribe.

Even so, it won't make your nonsense any more credible, nor will it make you seem less a fool.

12/24/2010 9:13:23 AM

Canadia

I disagree with him, but also agree that giving students every side of an argument is a fine enough idea.

Meh'd.

12/24/2010 9:17:39 AM

pete

First of all, there's no such thing as "theories of intelligent design". Second of all, WTF is with this Belief that students should make up their own minds? These poor freaks just can't accept that, in this case, there's a right answer and the fundies are wrong.

12/24/2010 9:59:16 AM

anevilmeme

Your major premise is wrong, google quantum mechanics.


12/24/2010 10:06:01 AM

Panz

" But the scientific evidence points out that our universe was designed for life. "

99.9% uninhabitable to life says otherwise, fool

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

What is God's cause?

"The universe began to exist. "

As we know it

"Therefore the universe has a cause."

And what might that be?

Intelligent design is not science for one big, fat reason....an unproven, nonexistant deity

12/24/2010 10:09:11 AM

shadkat

Meh. This is relatively tame and reasonable.

12/24/2010 10:21:55 AM

Karana

No ,no,this is what you're really trying to say.

n Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

n The universe began to exist.

n Therefore the universe has a cause.

n. Therefore God must have created everything

n.It is only logical to assume that God is the only answer to everything

Assuming that 'God-had-to-do-it' is 'Begging the Question'.

I honestly think you would throw out the whole 'Teach all intelligent design' if EVERY single religions creation stories were also taught beside it.
I'd be all for showing how ridiculous and non-scientific religious creation stories are.

P.S Evolution says nothing about how the universe started,or Earth was formed,or life formed etc. It is simply 'change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.'
It is not a 'explains everything ' theory.

12/24/2010 10:39:52 AM

Prof. Bill Hill

Jack sounds like a deluded spinner of untruths whose feeble mind only believes fantasies and is unresponsive to real world evidence.

12/24/2010 11:17:58 AM
1 2 3