Rant #1: Un-Intelligent Design

[B_M_W]

Fuck the Discovery Institute

Or

Michael Behe is a Fucktard

Or

Why Intelligent Design is a Crock of Shit


,ÄúTEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!,Äù is the battle cry of ID advocates from Florida to Kansas, those oh-so friendly religious fanatics who are in the game to fornicate the nations public schools systems with the semen of Creationist ,ÄúScience,Äù yet again, this time with a more scientific sounding name. Teach the Controversy, huh? Well, I'm here to tell that THERE IS NO FUCKING CONTROVERSY! Intelligent Design is still the same piece of useless shit that it always has been, yet these people insist that their (read as everybody's) children need to be exposed to all ,Äútheories,Äù equally. Of course, by theory, they mean a fucking guess written down by some old dead guys 2 millennial ago that is not only a fucking creation myth, but is FUCKING WRONG. Not to mention that its some of the most insipid crap I've ever read. But I digress. In the title I mentioned, among other things, that I would explain why ID is shit, and I intend to do that, now that I have shat some hate.

Reasons why Intelligent Design ,ÄúTheory,Äù consists of male Bovine fecal matter:

1. ID theory is not a theory: In scientific terms a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Key words here are well-substantiated and tested hypotheses. Now, lets see what one of the leading ,Äúscientist,Äù advocates of ID has to say about theories...

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy s definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

The one giving answers is none other than Michael Behe, the forefront Messiah of the ID movement. While he pwns himself almost immediately by equating ,ÄúTheory,Äù to ,ÄúHypothesis,Äù (something no real scientist would do) he then continues to suggest that Astrology and (I have to stifle laughter for this one) ETHER THEORY are both scientific theories. But enough of Behe for now, I'll come back to him later. The greater point is, ID is NOT a scientific theory.

2. There is no evidence for ID: In short, the definition of Intelligent Design ,Äútheory,Äù is ,Äúsince there are gaps in our knowledge of the universe, we conclude that it all came about by a ,ÄúIntelligent Designer,Äù. Thats it folks, the ,Äútheory of Intelligent Design,Äù. In addition to not only being COMPLETLY FUCKING USELESS to science, it provides no evidence for its claim. Oh, fine, I guess I'll use Behe as a whipping post again, if only because its so fucking easy. Behe uses ,ÄúGod of the Gaps,Äù as his main standing point, in addition to something he calls ,ÄúIrreducible Complexity,Äù. In other words, because the universe is so fucking big, and because biology is so fucking complex, the only way it could have possibly come about is by Intelligent Design. He then Points to, among other things, the Sphinx at Cairo, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and says ,ÄúThey are complex and designed, therefore, biology must be designed as well.,Äù Both ,ÄúGod of the Gaps,Äù and ,ÄúIrreducible Complexity,Äù use the standard ID logic formula: If A is not fully understood or is often too complex for normal (read: stupid) people to understand, then A != B (B being modern scientific opinion) and A = C (Intelligent Design). What they forget is that crucial of all things in science: EVIDENCE. Without evidence, a hypothesis should not even be considered scientifically. In other words, ID is shit.

3. ID Scientist = Crackpot Fucktard: I've talk quite a bit about Michael Behe already. He used to be a prominent biochemist working at Lehigh University. He still works there, but now he isn't so prominent for biochemistry, rather, he's well known for being an ID advocate. He's even written several books. But his arguments are just repetitions of those I have already stated. Repetition is a favored tactic of ID advocates. Personally, I think its an attempt at hypnotism. ^_^ Lets take a look at some of the other leading ,ÄúID scientists,Äù.

William Dembski: Another Crackpot Fucktard. Mathematician and self-ascribed philosopher. Works directly for the Discovery Institute. Favorite quote: ,ÄúIntelligent Design is an 'Argument from Ignorance...',Äù I believe that = pwned.

Kevin Hovind: Young Earth Creationist (read: Wannabe Crackpot Fucktard) Calls himself ,ÄúDr. Dino,Äù. Quotes the Xtian Tree Corpse directly as science.

And there are many others, all of them Fucktards. The ringleader for this circus? Discovery Institute. As a front for the Republican Party, they pay ,Äúrespected scientists,Äù well for their bullshit. Except for Behe, of course. They stopped supporting when he committed career suicide at the recent Dover trial. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

4. Its all a mask: Heres the thing ID advocates don't want you to know, the thing that they will deny vehemently if you ask it (that is, unless you get them stirred up enough). This great secret is:

Intelligent Design = Scientific Creationism

Of course, we all know that. ID is just a mask for SC. The original Scientific Creationism was denied access to public education after the Scopes ,ÄúMonkey,Äù Trial in 1925, and ever since, SC advocates have been trying to weasel their way back into the classroom. The new vehicle is called Intelligent Design, mostly, I believe, because it sounds scientific to the layman. Even YECs are getting in the game, trying to sound like the Crackpot Fucktards.

In conclusion, ID is a crock of shit because it's just revamped creationism in disguise, a crude hypothesis without evidence, supported only by Crackpots and fundamentalists. Keep it out of the classroom. Better yet, round up all the Crackpots and put them in the asylums. Thats where they really belong anyway.

Fucktards.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This was brilliant.  Well done.

And we need Fred to translate this:

,ÄúTEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!,Äù

Into loudspeak.

[B_M_W]

This was brilliant.  Well done.

And we need Fred to translate this:

,ÄúTEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!,Äù

Into loudspeak.

Thanks. Whats "Loudspeak"?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This was brilliant.  Well done.

And we need Fred to translate this:

,ÄúTEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!,Äù

Into loudspeak.

Thanks. Whats "Loudspeak"?

http://principiadiscordia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7726

[B_M_W]

This was brilliant.  Well done.

And we need Fred to translate this:

,ÄúTEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!,Äù

Into loudspeak.

Thanks. Whats "Loudspeak"?

http://principiadiscordia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7726

Definitely.  

[Cain]

This is great.  Especially the theory/hypothesis distinction.

[East Coast Hustle]

read and scored.

[Horab Fibslager]

i think inteligent design is great ebcaus eit's teh sorta nonsense that even your 4month ol child/brother/sister/cousin/whatever coudl defeat with 10 more degrees of clarity and coherence while shoing a mor eintimate knowledge of the jargon and the theoligical underpinnnings involved, adn why there i snothing wrong or contridictory theologically with theory of evolutyion
(even those crazies headjobs the jehovah's witness's agree that theory ofg evolution and ht ebible are square.)

[LMNO]

What I always find when calling out ID-ers on LJ is that they invariably attack Evolutionary Theory's holes and lack of certain kinds of evidence, but they never offer support of ID.

[Cain]

Its a religious/philosophical issue anyway.  But they cant admit that, because then David Hume's (or even more terrifying, Anthony Flew's) arguments are trotted out and show it up for the bullshit it is.

[LMNO]

troof.

I've always maintained that you can teach ID...  In a Philosophy or Social Studies class.  Or Current Events.*










*I dunno if anyone else here had a class called "Current Events" in Jr High School.  It was pretty stupid.

[Cain]

We had General Studies. Its like current events, but without the added rush of it being current.  I was taught about the Argument from Design (to give it its proper name) when I did A Level Religious Studies.  Since our teachers were enlightened and rather sensible individuals, we learnt how much shit it was.  Hume actually got into the argument and destroyed it from the inside, which was the best thing.

It should be taught....as an example of blind dogmatism overcoming scientific evidence.

[B_M_W]

This is great. Especially the theory/hypothesis distinction.

I've always felt that that is the biggest reason it shouldn't be taught, along with lack of evidence.

i think inteligent design is great ebcaus eit's teh sorta nonsense that even your 4month ol child/brother/sister/cousin/whatever coudl defeat with 10 more degrees of clarity and coherence while shoing a mor eintimate knowledge of the jargon and the theoligical underpinnnings involved, adn why there i snothing wrong or contridictory theologically with theory of evolutyion
(even those crazies headjobs the jehovah's witness's agree that theory ofg evolution and ht ebible are square.)

True from one standpoint, but obviously not true because so many people support it. And a kid will believe almost anything if its comming from a voice of authority.

What I always find when calling out ID-ers on LJ is that they invariably attack Evolutionary Theory's holes and lack of certain kinds of evidence, but they never offer support of ID.

Another thing that I have found to be hilarious. I didn't bring it up in the essay because I didn't want to lead on that evolution and ID are similar enough to talk about in the same sentence. Because they are not.

It should be taught....as an example of blind dogmatism overcoming scientific evidence.

And that is the ONLY way I would EVER consider letting it into the classroom. Period.

[B_M_W]

http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/

I just saw this and thought it would be a good addition to this thread, because you know I can't get enough of bashing Behe (ie "Astrology is a Scientific Theory"). And finally a journalist does it right and compares an interview with Behe to Monty Python's Brontosaurus sketch. Enjoy. I certainly did.

[fluffy]

i think id is just a subtle attempt to discredit christianity