Printable View
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/...tson_evolution
This "man of God" pisses me off to no end.
"intelligent design" — the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Apparently not so complex that Pat Robertson has figured out what does and doesn't piss God off.
The moral of the story here: Calling for the assasination of a South American president is okay, but you can't reject intelligent design and be in God's good books.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! :laugh :laugh :laughQuote:
All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" — the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power — as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."
I actually have no problem with schools teaching intelligent design or evolution, they both should probably be taught. There really isn't a seperation of church and state issue here, liberal courts are just retarded on this issue.
Pat Robertson is a whackjob though.
Yeah, I think scientists and religious fanatics agree; Pat Robertson is an idiot.
I love this assumption that just because you don't believe in I.D., or that you disagree with the details of where it should be taught that your automatically turning your back on God.Quote:
Originally posted by Leshrak
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."
The truth of the matter is that there really are more than just two theories regarding the nature/creation of the universe. Within both the "pure" evolution and ID camps, subgroups are divided over many issues. This does not even take into account the many groups who believe in some sort of melding of the two theories or even something completely different. In fact, there are so many misconceptions about BOTH theories that it would be worthwhile to have ideas presented from both sides in an educational setting. As Azoryn stated, many evolutionists are anything but atheistic in nature. However, to go along with that, there are a lot of people who take the notion of ID seriously that are not Christian nor proponents of any other western religion. The term "a higher power" does not always refer to the western notion of a personal god.
So far I've not really heard anyone saying that ID shouldn't be taught. It could be argued that it should be taught in science class, but that's a different discussion. I think very few would ever forbid alternate theories. What everyone does seem to be agreeing on however is that Robertson is a dumbass.
I'd personally like to see a few different theories and beliefs taught. The question is which ones?
Evolution and Creationism? What about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Why does it have to be Intelligent Design? Why can't it be Unintelligent Design? I've seen lots of stupid shit that's been created. How do you explain the duck-billed platypus without factoring in a gravity bong somewhere in the theory?
Obvious case for a intelligent design... someone has a sense of humor somewhere!Quote:
Originally posted by Gromgor
How do you explain the duck-billed platypus without factoring in a gravity bong somewhere in the theory?
Anyways I do get annoyed by the ultra-left that feel anytime anything religious is mentioned in the course of our government that it is a violation of our Constitution.
What pisses me off so much is that people want to get rid of the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, they want to get rid of the ten commandments in government buildings, but if you take away the Christmas Holiday of a government worker everyone would get all pissy.
People are willing to stand up for a seperation of church and state until it affects their paid holidays.
I agree completely and would go further to say that it really pisses me off when people seem to think that seperation of church and state means abolishment of all things spiritual from the public sector when so much of our founding generation wanted to be able to practice their own religious beliefs publically in the first place.
These days it seems that atheism is the "dominant belief" that people want to use to oppress anyone that has any form of religious belief.
I'm pretty much opposed to any form of faith, religion, doctrine, or policy that is a threat to my livelyhood or life.
Pat Robertson is a real concern to me, considering that the president listens to him.
This is a man who also believes feminism causes women to kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
When I think about this guy, I think religious fanatic!! KOO KOO!!
:p
That's a pretty broad statement, and I would assume that most people do not like things that threaten them. That sounds like human nature to me, however, I think it is incredibly closed minded to think that someone elses' belief/doctrine/etc is a threat to your livelyhood simply because you do not like it.
But finally, Robertson is a nut job.
Pat Robertson and the Discovery Institute crowd ARE a threat to my way of life. They wish to destroy natural science and replace it with a theistic understanding (sic) of the world. How do I know they wish to do this? Because the Discovery Institute stated as much in their wedge document:
“The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
It is natural science using scientific method that has formed the basis for every scientific advance we are lucky enough to have today. ID is not natural science. ID is explicitly supernatural. ID argues that if something is not currently understood then that is because something intelligent (that we cannot understand, predict, isolate etc) designed it. ID is a form of anti-science that cannot invent, predict, or expand knowledge. It is a surrender to the dark ages.
If the Discovery Institute, and other fundamentalist religious organizations succeed in convincing people of their lies (about scientific data, scientific debates and their own dubious credentials) and natural science is replaced by theism, then I’d like to say “I told you so” except that by then I’d probably have been burned as a heretic.
I think religious nut jobs should stop using technology to spread their messages. Because science is responsible for the invention of television, radio, computers, the internet, etc.
It's convenient for them to scream about shit until it comes time to throw their hat in the ring and prove they don't believe in the scientific methods of discovery, advancement and understanding.
And let's not forget penicillin. I say we quit giving Christians penicillin. I mean, it was a scientific discovery and just as God has been cast out of the city, so too do the Christians cast aside science. Fucking hypocrites.
What I'm interested to know is how these radicals view other religions and their opinions on how the world was formed. By forcing these opinions, have you invalidated the faith of several other extremely large and major religions? Or is that just a subject they don't talk about?
"We'll just ignore it like the giant squid.."
Peter
"A prayer... A prayer in a public school! GOD has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within an organized religion" -Superintendent Chalmers, Simpsons
A duckbilled platypus and a gravity bong used in the same sentence, hahaha!
I really don't think religious organizations will be satisfied until they can toss humanity back into the dark ages again. They just push easy answers that were easy to swallow 1000's of years ago.
Savaric, that's a great Simpsons quote. I think you might have missed the point though. The quote is an indictment of organized religion as well as our out of control obsession with trying to delete religion and spirituality from our lives.Quote:
Originally posted by Savaric
"A prayer... A prayer in a public school! GOD has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within an organized religion" -Superintendent Chalmers, Simpsons
...
I really don't think religious organizations will be satisfied until they can toss humanity back into the dark ages again. They just push easy answers that were easy to swallow 1000's of years ago.
The Dover case has been ruled on, but there’s still a lot of stuff going on in Kansas.
From the Chicago Tribune:
Quote:
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. -- In a broad and blistering landmark decision, a federal district court judge Tuesday ruled it unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, a concept critical of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, in the nation's public school science classrooms.
Using scathing language that described the defendants as liars and their actions as "breathtaking ianity," Judge John Jones III rendered what many consider a watershed decision in the culture wars over the teaching of evolution, also ruling that intelligent design, or ID, is not a scientific theory but a religious belief.
Kind of bizarre. I.D. as it is written up is a study of statistics, not a religious teaching. It does not say, as Malacasta seemed to suggest, that what is not understood must be from intelligent design. It attempts to identify a statistical breakpoint of probability below which something should normally be considered designed as opposed to naturally occuring.
At least that's what the book said. I don't know what version of it eventually made it to court. I guess I will have to look it up and see what about it the judge could possibly call an out and out lie.
The judge wasn't saying ID was a lie. It was fairly well established during the case that the SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS lied when they claimed that their motives for ordering the inclusion of ID in the classroom curriculum wasn't religious, but rather educational. The judge ruled that they were motivated by a desire to promote a religious belief in creation, despite their claims to the contrary. Using the public schools to promote creationism had already been ruled unconstitutional, so the judge merely followed that precedent in ruling the same way in this case.Quote:
Originally posted by Lokrian
At least that's what the book said. I don't know what version of it eventually made it to court. I guess I will have to look it up and see what about it the judge could possibly call an out and out lie.
Aaah...Quote:
Originally posted by Graeblyn
The judge wasn't saying ID was a lie. It was fairly well established during the case that the SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS lied when they claimed that their motives for ordering the inclusion of ID in the classroom curriculum wasn't religious, but rather educational. The judge ruled that they were motivated by a desire to promote a religious belief in creation, despite their claims to the contrary. Using the public schools to promote creationism had already been ruled unconstitutional, so the judge merely followed that precedent in ruling the same way in this case.
Well, why don't you pass a law requiring people to get 666 tattood on their forehead or their hand to buy food? lolQuote:
Originally posted by Gromgor
I think religious nut jobs should stop using technology to spread their messages. Because science is responsible for the invention of television, radio, computers, the internet, etc.
It's convenient for them to scream about shit until it comes time to throw their hat in the ring and prove they don't believe in the scientific methods of discovery, advancement and understanding.
And let's not forget penicillin. I say we quit giving Christians penicillin. I mean, it was a scientific discovery and just as God has been cast out of the city, so too do the Christians cast aside science. Fucking hypocrites.
Gromgor IS the anti-Christ! I knew it!
What really makes me laugh is people saying we and the world must have been designed by a god because it is perfect?
1. I believe this fallacy must come from a man's mouth because it is not intelligent to create women with such a small hole for such big heads.
2. What about the appendix? A useless hanging cause of trouble only. I guess god was creating humans and thinking "what can I to put there?, something magnificent!"... suddenly he got inspired into creating the platypus and left humans unfinished.
Of course all these unperfect designs could be explained by a Larson cartoon when god gets the world out of the oven and says "I think this is half baked".
Anyway, the whole thing is just funny.
Salimar