Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design 1634
An anonymous reader writes "The National Academies' National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association are using the power of copyright to ensure that students in Kansas receive a robust education. They're backed by the AAS: The American Association for the Advancement of Science." From the release: "[they] have decided they cannot grant the Kansas State School Board permission to use substantial sections of text from two standards-related documents: the research council's 'National Science Education Standards' and 'Pathways to Science Standards', published by NSTA. The organizations sent letters to Kansas school authorities on Wednesday, Oct. 26 requesting that their copyrighted material not be used ... Leshner said AAAS backs the decision on copyright permission. 'We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology ... We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.'"
Arrooooo? (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Flying Spaghetti Monster (Score:5, Funny)
The obligatory argument against ID (Score:5, Funny)
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullpoop sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Intellegent Design == Ayleens! (Score:3, Funny)
The obligatory argument for ID (Score:2, Funny)
A newer, alternative view provides balance to the age-old argument, pitting creationism against evolution. It's called intelligent design. It studies the science of intelligence or intelligent life. It says the universe shows evidence for design. I don't think any would argue that we are all intelligently and uniquely designed.
You can believe what you want about who created the world and what's in it. As a Christian, I know it was Jesus, but intelligent design doesn't require belief in Jesus. Students can make up their own minds or develop their own opinions about who they believe the "Creator" is. Intelligent design is not creationism or naturalism; it simply follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads.
Darwinists describe evolution as "merely change" in living organisms. How absurd. We just changed from one being to the next? If that's the case, who is responsible for that change? How did we come into being before we changed? These are the questions that intelligent design allows students to probe no matter who they might believe is the author of that design.
Opponents to creationism and intelligent design argue that school science classes should focus on genuine scientific theories. Well, evolution certainly fails that test. And to simply say intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory is simply an opinion, not fact. Intelligent design can and has been proved scientifically.
Intelligent design is accepted by religious and nonreligious academics and scientists; supported by microbiologists and mathematics. In a Natural History Magazine study, three proponents of intelligent design summarize their findings this way:
* Every living cell contains many ultra-sophisticated molecular machines.
* Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature.
* Darwin's finches and four-winged fruit fly theories cannot account for all features of living things.
Re:The heart of the problem. (Score:2, Funny)
Intelligent Design isn't of much good anyway... (Score:2, Funny)
Jesus Christ should be the central focus of our heart, mind and soul - every minute of every day. All this other academic ciriculum is only skirting around the core issue.
Re:Obligatory Flying Spaghetti Monster (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Scary Part of it all... (Score:1, Funny)
So the doctors are Intelligently designing life
Re:Debunking Intelligent Design (Score:4, Funny)
And as far as it being as valid as so called "Christian ID", then tell me, how do you explain the existence of Parmesan cheese? ID and other Christian creation myths completely duck this question.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Funny)
The definition in the antecedent post was incomplete. If they're different species, they can't produce fertile offspring.
For example, when Kansas State Board of Education chairman Steve Abrams has sex with monkeys, I would not at all be surprised if offspring are occasionally conceived. And due to his views on abortion, they will of course be brought to term if at all possible. However, those sad little creatures will never produce children of their own, because Steve Abrams is a different species of monkey from those commonly available for fornication in Kansas.
Re:The obligatory argument for ID (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The obligatory argument for ID (Score:3, Funny)
Nuns on the Run! (Score:3, Funny)
Brian: "Let me try and summarize this: God is His son. And His son is God. But His son moonlights as a holy ghost, a holy spirit, and a dove. And they all send each other, even though they're all one and the same thing?"
Charlie: "You've got it. You really could be a nun!"
Brian: "Wait a minute... what I just said, does that make any sense to you?"
Charlie: "Well, no. It doesn't make sense to anyone - that's why you have to have faith. If it made sense, it wouldn't have to be a religion!"
The complete list of Designs (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose if someone really wanted to enumerate the whole list of Design hypotheses, there shouldn't only be ID, FSM, or BSD, it should begin to look something like this:
Re:Amazed that this is still for discussion (Score:2, Funny)
I think it was meant as a half-hearted joke. It would be funny to make a religion out of silly names and people never notice the difference. Maybe reverse the letters and have Xunil instead of Linux, Lrep instead of Perl, etc.
Joseph Smith is perhaps laughing his ass off in heaven (or hell) saying thing such as, "And they bought the idea of multiple wives. We were just horney bastards; it was was a revelation from my dick, not from God."
Re:Nuns on the Run! (Score:5, Funny)