this doesn't sound like satire to me. This sounds like a very very weak strawman. *shrugs* he appears to be against the inclusion of creative design theory in schools, and doesn't have the wherewithal to actually go after creative design itself, so he creates for himself a straw man so weak and rediculous that it gets knocked over in the very act of setting it up. Satire is one thing, but this is just very weak argumentation.
Actually, I believe the argument was that, If you are willing to teach something that is not based in fact along side of something that is set with proof, and evidence, you should be willing to teach more than just the christian version of creationism. Sure it was absurd, but so is believing that just because creationism is important to a lot of people, it is the only thing worth teaching. I have no problem with creationism being taught in school, but I also think that EVERYTHING should be taught and it should be brought forth as.. "people's beliefs" instead of fact.
if I remember right, the school board is attempting to add Creative Design to the curiculum, not Creationism. Two totally different animals. Creationism, as espoused by blowhard idiots like Ken Hamm, is not a scientific theory. It reduces (look who's setting up a straw man now) to the statement "God created the universe because it says so in the bible." Creative design (more accurately stated: Intelligent design) is a scientific theory that says "there is a large amount of evidence that fine tuning requiring intelligence exists in the universe, therefore, there was an intelligent fine tuner who created the universe." One is not the other. Being an Intelligent Design theorist, I actually get quite offended when my scientificly based arguments are automaticly dismissed because of creationism. Because of this, I've decided to post just a "short" post in my own LJ about why I personally believe that scientific evidence exists to point to an intelligent creator. This argument is based on fact, not belief, and is supported by proof
( ... )
It's still a terrible argument because it's not testable. You would never be able to test anything because how do you test the Intelligent Designer if there is none present. What Intelligent design is doing is violating a scientific method known as Occum's razor. There are way too many assumptions that have to be made for this to be viewed as a fact. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.
The Idea that some outside force created everything is piori knowledge and is unfair to use in a pure scientific setting. Sure, maybe some god did create the world, but how do you jump to that conclusion? Where do you get god from? You have to guess, or at least use your belief system to throw it out.
Comments 13
Jed from Work
Reply
Reply
Reply
The Idea that some outside force created everything is piori knowledge and is unfair to use in a pure scientific setting. Sure, maybe some god did create the world, but how do you jump to that conclusion? Where do you get god from? You have to guess, or at least use your belief system to throw it out.
Reply
Leave a comment