Why do I keep getting that back sliding feeling - I though we were supposed to progress forward?
Missouri bill redefines science, gives equal time to intelligent design
by John Timmer - Feb 12 2013
Although even the Wikipedia entry for scientific theory includes definitions provided by the world's most prestigious organizations of scientists, the bill's sponsor Rick Brattin has seen fit to invent his own definition. And it's a head-scratcher: "'Scientific theory,' an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy." The faith or philosophy involved remain unspecified.
If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught. If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course.
Missouri Bill Redefines Science, Pushes Intelligent Design
TheYoungTurks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VlwTJq9iC8
Actually I think this is progress. It’s good to expose this to the wider public. And it’s very easy to deal with… just agree with it, and sue the pants off them if they so much as imply that god isn’t a women!
“That’s ridiculous, God isn’t a women, He’s a man”
“So are you saying women can’t be intelligent?”
“Uh uh no I’m not, just the Bible says…”
“Wait, the Bible says God has a penis?”
“Uh no but, well God doesn’t have a gender”
“Ok, so then let’s refer to God correctly as an It”
Expose their warped psychology.
Sometimes I wonder how often it is that people proposing such laws are sociopaths, that they are doing nothing more than seeing how far they can push others to act stupidly for their own pleasure.
How about, rather than presenting it as “Intelligent Design”, they present it as “Stupid Design”? They could point out all the extinct species as dumb mistakes god made.
Occam
How about, rather than presenting it as "Intelligent Design", they present it as "Stupid Design"? They could point out all the extinct species as dumb mistakes god made. :)
Occam
Very good point. Which part of the intelligent design is responsible for innocent children getting horrible diseases? Better (worse) yet, which part of the ID resulted in natural disasters killing sometimes 100s of thousands of innocent people?
If I were the designer and wanted to give "my children" a little adversity I'd fix things so that natural events challenged them but didn't kill them. I'd *maybe* create a minor virus or something that made people feel bad for awhile but never killed them horribly. Since I was all knowing and all powerful this type of design would be completely within my abilities.
Sometimes I wonder how often it is that people proposing such laws are sociopaths, that they are doing nothing more than seeing how far they can push others to act stupidly for their own pleasure.
How I hate to admit I hear exactly what you're saying.
I get the feeling many can't wait for the serious gun firing to start.
Sometimes I wonder how often it is that people proposing such laws are sociopaths, that they are doing nothing more than seeing how far they can push others to act stupidly for their own pleasure.
How I hate to admit I hear exactly what you're saying.
I get the feeling many can't wait for the serious gun firing to start.
We know this can happen even to otherwise 'normal' people who are given power. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that, flawed as it was.
Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught. If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth’s biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course.
that's other SCIENTIFIC theories. "intelligent design" is NOT scientific.
