Comments
The Commissar has come up with a great response to the Intelligent Design Creationists mantra of “Teach the Controversy”. His resposne,
I like this alot. First, it highlights that ID has no evidence and that evolutionary theory has a mountain of evidence. It is precisely what scientists do: look at the evidence and then revise and update one’s theories.
Categories
Tags
Steve,
WHAT evolutionary evidence? Scientists have never been able to prove evolution-EVER! Anti-religious types will have us believe they have and that if you don’t believe then you are blind to the evidence. But listen very closely-THEY HAVE NEVER PROVEN EVOLUTION! THERE IS A DISTINCT LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR IT!
Got it?
teach the truth, now there’s a slogan! how about stick to the subject there’s another. for instance if you are teaching physiology, it is not necessary to even mention evolution or design, just “this is how it works and why”. Separate comment; archeologists find a broken piece of pottery and say it is proof of “intelligent design”, evolutionists see the hand that made it and say it is not.[lol]
What truth floyd? Your truth, the Hindu truth, the athiest’s truth? Exactly whose? How about we teach the evidence (and how to evaluate it) and let people make up their own minds?
As for evolution and physiology? I don’t know I don’t know much about physiology, but for medicine it has been known to come in handy.
Separate comment; archeologists find a broken piece of pottery and say it is proof of �intelligent design�, evolutionists see the hand that made it and say it is not.
LOL? Sorry, I’ve seen this false analogy…err joke so many times that I get MEGO.
whose evidence?your evidence? hindu evidence? christian evidence? pure objectivity is of course impossible. the obvious point here is that you don’t offer it. what do you see as false in the two statements you claim to be analogous? evolution has all the earmarks of religion, since it serves as a source of personal identity to the believer and is seen by them as crucial,or at least “handy”, to every subject from classroom english to car sales.will the new “evolvo” be intelligently designed?
Evidence in science has another name floyd, it is called data. So when it comes to teaching the evidence it is in reality teaching the data and how to evaluate it in terms of hypotheses. Really, I don’t see what is so controversial about this.
As for objectivity, I never claimed that teaching the evidence would be purely objective. This is getting tiresome floyd. You and RJN, Bithead and the rest of the ID choir section always fall back on these strawman arguments. You keep writting about how I’m arguing in favor of something I haven’t even suggested.
Evolution does not serve as a personal diety anymore than a tree or lake could. This kind of thing defines the notion of a deity downwards to such a point that it makes the term deity meaningless. Why isn’t the process that makes rain a personal deity? It is natural, and debunks all the supernatural explanations of how rain is made. Further, it believed by every single athiest as well as every religious person. So it strikes me that we shouldn’t be able to teach kids about the process of rain, and other things such as plate tectonics.
Same for thunder, lightening, and the wind. Maybe we should go back to the three R’s eh floyd. That way we can have a backwards population that is clueless about the science that is driving the modern age.
