Clara ([info]anotherthink) wrote,
@ 2007-10-11 10:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
"Big Science." Ha ha.
Wait, that's not funny.

(Post a new comment)


[info]slartucker
2007-10-11 04:29 pm UTC (link)
Somewhere in this, there's a joke about Big Problems.

(Reply to this)

[info]agnoster
2007-10-11 05:16 pm UTC (link)
Oh, it's funny all right. Just mentally replace "evolution" with "gravity" and "intelligent design" with "intelligent falling" - hmm... it reads about the same, actually.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]agnoster
2007-10-11 05:34 pm UTC (link)
In fact, here it is for your reading pleasure: Ben Stein to battle Newton in major film

My favorite result of the search-and-replace: "Oxford gravityist Richard Dawkins"

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]cataplum
2007-10-11 09:43 pm UTC (link)
I honestly don't get what the issue is.

At some level, I'm thoroughly pissed off at the scientific institution for being so blindly pro-evolution. I mean, I believe evolution to be the most convincing theory explaining how we and the living world came to be, but it's a confidence that I've derived from learning about all sides of the arguments.

I understand the fear of children being taught the wrong thing. Rather than ban opposing viewpoints, shouldn't we just become even better at arguing our own?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]anotherthink
2007-10-11 10:11 pm UTC (link)
for my reply to this, see my comments in Yitz's LJ :).

today is a good day for interesting LJ comment thread discussions! I think I do my best writing in LJ comment threads, perhaps.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]agnoster
2007-10-11 11:14 pm UTC (link)
I second what Clara said, but yes - the problem is not with debate between valid explanations. Within the framework of evolution, there's still plenty of study and debate, just as there is about quantum gravity and such. You have to understand, though, that when someone says "well, gravity is just a theory, so we should discuss it on equal footing with intelligent falling" that any serious scientist needs to roll their eyes. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it's a thinly-veiled attempt to push religion into public classrooms. It is not and *cannot* be a scientific theory, because its very premise is unfalsifiable.

Let me put it this way - are you thoroughly pissed off at the scientific institution for being so blindly pro-gravity? If someone said we should teach intelligent falling in classrooms with taxpayer's money, so children can make up their own minds, do you think we should treat them as reasonable people with scientific inquiry in mind - or small-minded dogmatists trying to push an agenda to the detriment of human knowledge?

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Intelligent Design is also the Pro-Venus Theory.
[info]oracleofadelphi
2007-10-17 03:03 pm UTC (link)
Meaning that if the entire fossil record had been created by the Flood (as ID posits), it would absolutely have created a runaway Greenhouse effect, and Earth would currently be swimming in poison clouds with temperatures sufficient to melt lead.

Seriously. Reading about this movie makes me want to cry.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…