The fight against Anti-Evolution Agenda

Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
The fight against Anti-Evolution Agenda

 And the proverbial dead horse has been resuscitated to be beaten and rapped again.  I can't believe this still takes up the energy focus away from more important issues.  The education system is plagued by so many issues it should be criminal to challenge it with nonsense.   How do ID proponents gain a controversial foothold in today's curriculum?  This infuriates me to no end. 

This is an article from Scientific American website.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-education-of-jennifer-miller

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ya, pretty sad to hear, that

Ya, pretty sad to hear, that they're at it again.

You can see the hypocritical double standard of theists.

When they are the minority, they protest it endlessly.

But, when atheists merely put up a sign saying anything they don't like, it's 'insulting', it's 'hostile', it's 'militant'.

 

Christians feel 'more' equal that others. They feel it's their 'right' to have what they 'want' taught in schools.

That's not the way it works.

Schools are meant to teach children cutting edge science and technology, in order to allow children to 'get ahead of the curve', to be 'at the forefront'.

Not to 'regress' to being 'sheeple'.

 

I don't see their efforts to challenge school boards to teach ID, as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.

It'll make the topic more mainstream, and will become higher profile.

More atheists will become more vocal. More prominent atheists, will become more vocal.

It'll become more 'hip' to be atheist.

That's why the theists are desperate to find intelligent people, to represent them, in the media.

The majority of what they have, are athletes and brainless celebrities who thank Jeebus, for winning an Emmy for a daytime soap opera, or for scoring the winning touchdown, or winning the 'Southern Comfort 500' Nascar race, or idiots on TV.

 

Britney Spears and Elizabeth Hasselblank, against Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet.

Ray Ray (Banana Man) Comfort and Kirk Camoron, against Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings.

Ya, there's no evolutionary gap there...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Britney Spears

redneF wrote:

Britney Spears and Elizabeth Hasselblank, against Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet.

Ray Ray (Banana Man) Comfort and Kirk Camoron, against Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings.

Ya, there's no evolutionary gap there...

I would pay to see that wrestling match, though Stephen Hawkings should have a mecha wheelchair Smiling .  

I personally believe that the 'intelligent' people that represent ID have a financial motivation to do so.  I don't agree with religion, but I can see how it can be emotionally appealing and attractive to intelligent people ( lying to themselves ) .  But ID...  you can't possibly be considered intelligent and utter so many logical contradictions and have complete disregard for scientific method.  

If I was financially motivated sufficiently, I would attempt to prove that we were all created by my teddy-bear.  Honesty and a dollar seventy two gets you an extra large coffee at my local coffee shop. Smiling 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I personally

Ktulu wrote:

I personally believe that the 'intelligent' people that represent ID have a financial motivation to do so. 

I think it's a little more complex than that. I think it's a desperate attempt to become prominent and respected.

To gain infamy.

Like the pathetic VenomfangX infantile on YouTube, who was dubbed "Poster Child for Stupidity", or PCS, for short.

A young kid with a very limited intellect, who only had enough knowledge to make himself dangerous. Yet, he was trying to disprove science, and challenge well established science, that he didn't even understand.

An utter fool, who finally got busted trying to file false DMCA copyright infringement charges, and had to face the possiblity of imprisonment, and had to issue a public YouTube apology, or the case against him, would have gone to court.

 

Ktulu wrote:
I don't agree with religion, but I can see how it can be emotionally appealing and attractive to intelligent people ( lying to themselves ) . 

Just like astrology, homeopathy, or a lucky rabbit's foot.

Ktulu wrote:
 But ID...  you can't possibly be considered intelligent and utter so many logical contradictions and have complete disregard for scientific method.  

It'll never get into the science classrooms as science. Because it's NOT scientific.

There's NO scientific data.

It's 'data' is a bible.

Pfffft....

Ktulu wrote:
If I was financially motivated sufficiently, I would attempt to prove that we were all created by my teddy-bear.  Honesty and a dollar seventy two gets you an extra large coffee at my local coffee shop. Smiling 

L. Ron Hubbard did it...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:redneF

Ktulu wrote:

redneF wrote:

Britney Spears and Elizabeth Hasselblank, against Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet.

Ray Ray (Banana Man) Comfort and Kirk Camoron, against Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings.

Ya, there's no evolutionary gap there...

I would pay to see that wrestling match, though Stephen Hawkings should have a mecha wheelchair Smiling

 

He does have the mecha-wheelchair but only when he is showing his superpowers.

 

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/233937

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Credulity can infect all

Credulity can infect all levels of education. Being smart about some things doesn't mean you are right about all things. Religion infects all classes in America and the ones who have managed to escape it's grip are in the minority.

Newton was a smart man, but he also thought Alchemy would become a valid science.

As long as our species exists, from rich to poor, in all nations, there will always be those who prefer wishful thinking to pragmatism, and if they have money, or numbers or both, they will try to push their utopia on politics.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Credulity can

Brian37 wrote:

Credulity can infect all levels of education. Being smart about some things doesn't mean you are right about all things. Religion infects all classes in America and the ones who have managed to escape it's grip are in the minority.

Newton was a smart man, but he also thought Alchemy would become a valid science.

As long as our species exists, from rich to poor, in all nations, there will always be those who prefer wishful thinking to pragmatism, and if they have money, or numbers or both, they will try to push their utopia on politics.

I hear you there, thought skepticism seems to increase with IQ in my limited experience with people.  As for Newton, alchemy was the only form of chemistry around at the time, along with the occult it was really the best scientific theory that he could muster with the available knowledge, and trying to test it empirically.  He later stopped after not getting consistent results. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Brian37

Ktulu wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Credulity can infect all levels of education. Being smart about some things doesn't mean you are right about all things. Religion infects all classes in America and the ones who have managed to escape it's grip are in the minority.

Newton was a smart man, but he also thought Alchemy would become a valid science.

As long as our species exists, from rich to poor, in all nations, there will always be those who prefer wishful thinking to pragmatism, and if they have money, or numbers or both, they will try to push their utopia on politics.

I hear you there, thought skepticism seems to increase with IQ in my limited experience with people.  As for Newton, alchemy was the only form of chemistry around at the time, along with the occult it was really the best scientific theory that he could muster with the available knowledge, and trying to test it empirically.  He later stopped after not getting consistent results. 

Even if someone like Hitchens or Dawkins came out tomorrow and said, "I now believe in God", highly unlikely, but....

Even if, my default reaction would be to lean towards natural explanations to this sudden change. Affects of some sort of emotional trauma or physical damage to the brain in injury or disease. Or even slick marketing of some elaborate pseudo scientist.

What I would not do is say, "This person is smart and since I have had a history of supporting their position, now that they have changed it, they must be right automatically".

No, if this were to happen, they would STILL be subject to the rigors of scientific method that demands independent testing and independent peer review.

I get tired of believers pointing out smart people as being proof for their god existing. Muslims point out Arabs contributing to algebra as being proof of Allah. Christians point out fuckwads like Aquinus as being proof Jesus.

That would be like saying Gene Rodenburry invented the modern cell phone because he depicted the tricorder in Star Trec.

Henry Ford built the model T. But he had no way, or clue, for that matter, that his car manufacturing would lead to modern Lamborghini. AND no mechanic back then, or even now, if sane, is going to claim that their inventions are the result of pink unicorns or Thor.

Reality is not run on pixie dust nor do human observations of such need comic book super heros to observe.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Even if

Brian37 wrote:

Even if someone like Hitchens or Dawkins came out tomorrow and said, "I now believe in God", highly unlikely, but....

Even if, my default reaction would be to lean towards natural explanations to this sudden change. Affects of some sort of emotional trauma or physical damage to the brain in injury or disease. Or even slick marketing of some elaborate pseudo scientist.

Ha!

On some forum, I was fast to express my strong dislike of an OP video called somewhat like "symphony to reason" or like that.  The response from some atheists was that I should be a bad non-true atheist because the video was endorsed by ... oh my blank.... Richard Dawkins!  yes, and I can't care less about Bieber (don't like pop music at all).

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: The education

Ktulu wrote:

 The education system is plagued by so many issues it should be criminal to challenge it with nonsense.   How do ID proponents gain a controversial foothold in today's curriculum?  This infuriates me to no end. 

They're trying to bypass a few critical steps.

Trying to get the trophy when they haven't even qualified to compete.

 

The good news is that Creationists have many opportunities to elaborate on their data and scientific findings.

Here's one such platform, that they should not overlook.

The League of Reason.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwfeMbH4HyI&feature=related

 

Good luck, Creationists. May God be with you....

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Here's a Poster Child for

Here's a Poster Child for Creationism.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuHornWkFfg&feature=related

 

This is what ID proponents want young children to think like.

You could write volumes on why this guy is certifiably mentally challenged, and suffering from delusions of grandeur.

No joke.

This guy would probably score over 100 IQ, but, is completely handicapped, and is incapable of 'correlating' facts.

He has 'gaps', in his stream of conscious thought.

He is truly handicapped, and is unaware, and would become hostile, if counselled.

IOW, he's batsh1t crazy, and could be living right next door to you...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Newton was right

Brian37 wrote:

 

Newton was a smart man, but he also thought Alchemy would become a valid science.

 

 

The search for alchemy based on experiment and painstaking recording is the foundation of modern chemistry and gave us precursors to neat things like Mendeleev's periodic table.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
You can't make this sh1t

You can't make this sh1t up...

 

Here is another Poster Child for Stupidity.

If he's actually for real.

I have a hard time believing this guy is serious, but, I shouldn't, given the number of average intelligence people, who are still mentally handicapped.

Video 1 (in 2 parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX1IJ9eSBJ4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-Kn1lqRE&feature=autoplay&list=ULXCS3WDzl--E&index=6&playnext=3

 

Video 2 (in 2 parts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2cis7-SpmY&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi1y4MHK1N0&feature=related

 

 

In the first video, he makes the absolutely inexcusable error, of an adult mind that is the product of a government sanctioned education system, of thinking he has found a flaw in Corpernicus' original heliocentric theorums.

IOW, he is OUT OF HIS MIND. He even blunders his own theory....

He even offers a 'challenge' to find evidence in nature of 'heliocentric' evidence. He claims you CANNOT.

He also claims one CANNOT locate the center of orbits

He has concluded that the mass of objects on earth, should weigh 'twice less', around the equator (non sequitur) than in Vancouver (?????), due to centrifugal force acting in the opposite direction of gravity.

He concludes this despite not properly factoring the speed of the earth's rotation.

 

This dovetails with his second video, where he somehow manages to convince himself that Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, effectively cancels all motion, and that motion is simply an illusion...

He doesn't understand how energy (work) is converted in thermodynamics.

It's unfricken' real, that an educated adult, in a 1st world country, with internet access, and the ability to use a computer, could be this fcuking dense...

 

This really goes to show, that theism will one day be listed as a symptom of a mental dysfunction, and mental handicap.

 

 

 

It's only a matter of........time.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BethK
atheist
BethK's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2011-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: And the

Ktulu wrote:

 And the proverbial dead horse has been resuscitated to be beaten and rapped again.  I can't believe this still takes up the energy focus away from more important issues.  The education system is plagued by so many issues it should be criminal to challenge it with nonsense.   How do ID proponents gain a controversial foothold in today's curriculum?  This infuriates me to no end.

 

People will get the education system they demand.

In the US, the First Amendment should trump this ID nonsense from being seriously brought up as being a subject for a public school. But, if no one seriously challenges it - and note that challenges take money and years - it will keep making inroads. This will happen until there are enough people attending school board meetings and saying NO to this intelligent design nonsense, and accurately articulate its source and content. Furthermore, demand that science be taught as science, rather than some sort of religious debating forum.

The vast majority of people are neither in the young-earth-creationist evangelical Christian crowd, nor in the secular camp. This will remain an issue until the majority comes out and says, clearly, what it wants and what it will tolerate. If the majority want mythology taught as science, that's what they'll get. And, it's what they should have. The First Amendment could be changed too - IF the majority want it.

If people want the US to remain a first-world, industrial, economic, and military power, we MUST stop the mythology-pushers in our science classes, and leave science classes to teach science - with standards for what and how it's taught. If people continue to cave to the ID camp, and teach mythology, and require that some children be exempted from being offended by true science - or demand that no children be taught science because a few or their parents MIGHT be offended, the US should be prepared to become another third-world, impoverished theocracy. Or, taken over by another nation with science-based military equipment.

 

I don't think anyone here wants the US to become a sad little theocracy made up of superstitious people. The key to it is to wake up the "silent majority", and have THEM say "NO" to these religious fringe groups - that while we may be offending them, they are offending us too - and posing a clear and present danger to our future national security by giving a counterfeit education to everyone funded by tax money. A counterfeit education which cannot compete in today's world. A counterfeit education which cannot proceed to study science or medicine without a lot of remedial classes.

 

Arguing with the young earth evangelicals pushing the ID agenda will be fruitless. They will not change their minds. Alerting the majority to what is going on, and why it is they should care about it, will make a difference.

Whether or not they are free to prevent their own children from getting a real education is another matter for debate.

How's my proselytizing? Call 1-800-FANATIC

Beth


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Here's a Poster

redneF wrote:

Here's a Poster Child for Creationism.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuHornWkFfg&feature=related

 

This is what ID proponents want young children to think like.

You could write volumes on why this guy is certifiably mentally challenged, and suffering from delusions of grandeur.

No joke.

This guy would probably score over 100 IQ, but, is completely handicapped, and is incapable of 'correlating' facts.

He has 'gaps', in his stream of conscious thought.

He is truly handicapped, and is unaware, and would become hostile, if counselled.

IOW, he's batsh1t crazy, and could be living right next door to you...

 

I think I know that guy Smiling, I find people like him fascinating to a degree.  After a time, however, they start to at first annoy, and then proceed to just ignore logic to the point that listening to them makes my head hurt.

My parents had a family friend like that when I was growing up.  I was born with an eye problem, it manifested that when I was tired, one eye would wonder upwards.  To compensate I had to tilt my head to the right.  It was kind of fucked and not that common.  I had surgery for it when I was 18 and it was fixed.  Anyways, this relates to the story.  This fuckwad was telling my parents that he can cure my problem with yoga.  Himself being some sort of yoga expert from watching various karate movies and having an overactive imagination.  My mom, her judgment having been clouded with concern, was actually entertaining the idea.  I had to be courteous because he was a family friend, I refused his help politely, but he was suggesting the craziest shit as though it were fact.  To add insult to the overall surreal conversation, his wife was actually supporting his aberrations as though they were true... 

He's no longer a family friend for obvious reasons, but he made quite an impression on my young mind.  I realized that seriously deluded and mentally fucked up people can function and pass for relatively normal members of our society.  And you're right he probably would have scored over 100 in an IQ test.

Edit: typo

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Newton was a smart man, but he also thought Alchemy would become a valid science.

 

 

The search for alchemy based on experiment and painstaking recording is the foundation of modern chemistry and gave us precursors to neat things like Mendeleev's periodic table.

 

I still want that philosopher's stone don't you.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker

TGBaker wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Newton was a smart man, but he also thought Alchemy would become a valid science.

 

 

The search for alchemy based on experiment and painstaking recording is the foundation of modern chemistry and gave us precursors to neat things like Mendeleev's periodic table.

 

I still want that philosopher's stone don't you.

 

 

Just take any stone that Mr. Metaphysical claims as his own, it should be able to turn led into gold, or at the very least make a fine projectile for said philosopher's head.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:TGBaker

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Newton was a smart man, but he also thought Alchemy would become a valid science.

 

 

The search for alchemy based on experiment and painstaking recording is the foundation of modern chemistry and gave us precursors to neat things like Mendeleev's periodic table.

 

I still want that philosopher's stone don't you.

 

 

Just take any stone that Mr. Metaphysical claims as his own, it should be able to turn led into gold, or at the very least make a fine projectile for said philosopher's head.

I have a friend that has an extensive alchemy collection. Ever noticed that Jungians are into alchemy as a source of mystical symbolism??? I've tried to decipher the Voynich manuscript off and on the past year. I think its a fake.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I have a

TGBaker wrote:

I have a friend that has an extensive alchemy collection. Ever noticed that Jungians are into alchemy as a source of mystical symbolism??? I've tried to decipher the Voynich manuscript off and on the past year. I think its a fake.

Sorry you lost me there.  I thought Jungian school of though was psychology related... I must confess I have anecdotal knowledge of alchemy.  I know that Sir. Newton used to practice but there was no chemistry around at the time... the rest of the knowledge comes from video games lol, and some of my witch wannabe highschool friends.  And of course everyone knows of the philosopher stone legend.

Edit.  Have never heard of the manuscript either, sounds interesting, I love puzzles.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:TGBaker wrote:I

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I have a friend that has an extensive alchemy collection. Ever noticed that Jungians are into alchemy as a source of mystical symbolism??? I've tried to decipher the Voynich manuscript off and on the past year. I think its a fake.

Sorry you lost me there.  I thought Jungian school of though was psychology related... I must confess I have anecdotal knowledge of alchemy.  I know that Sir. Newton used to practice but there was no chemistry around at the time... the rest of the knowledge comes from video games lol, and some of my witch wannabe highschool friends.  And of course everyone knows of the philosopher stone legend.

Edit.  Have never heard of the manuscript either, sounds interesting, I love puzzles.

Jing thought that there were archetypes in alchemy that could explain the unconscious.  I guess along with snakes and dragons.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism