All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!

[yendi]

If you're too fucking stupid to understand what a scientific theory is, you don't belong on a fucking school board. I don't give a shit who elected you; the ability to administer an educational system requires education, and if you're sitting there advocating Intelligent Design (aka Creation Science, to call a spade a spade), you are not educated. Get the fuck off the school board and go back to picking nits off the head of your fellow uneducated asswipes. If you really want to contribute to society, go stick your head under a falling rock and put the theory of gravity to the test.

Comments

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

for the record, some proponents (including the man who came up with the term and basic theory) contend that Intelligent Design is an adjunct to evolution, not a contradiction.
It irks me that the theory has been picked up as a supposed debunker of evolution; it's not and wasn't intended to be so.

[yendi]

Read Michael Shermer's Science Friction, which I don't have in front of me, but nicely addresses those issues. Regardless of alleged intent, ID is diametrically opposed to evolution, and has absolutely been subsumed into the creationist movement.

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

aren't we supposed to judge a theory based on its proposal, not by what wackos pick it up and distort it?

Speaking strictly on the subject of the theory itself as was originally submitted, not as it is put forth by people who don't know the first thing about science; I am not advocating the theory, merely pointing out that if you want to get mad about fools distorting science (as in the note they wanted to put in textbooks warning that evolution is a theory, not fact) it seems disingenuous to ignore the actual theory yourself when putting it down. To whit; are you angry about the idiots or the theory - which you don't agree with I understand - because in this case, the idiots do not represent the science that was proposed.

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

what this article makes me worry about is how they will present this theory... the vast majority of people in America actually DO believe in a creator, like it or not, and while I personally believe in ABSOLUTE seperation of church and state (including schools) I do feel that allowing a teacher to mention a "creative spirit" or some equally generalized would most likely ensure that no one particular religion or non-religion even is left chafing. I doubt it will be that benign and I'm sure this really IS an effort to sneak a little creationism into the curriculum (but WHOSE creationism? Nordic? Pacific Islanders? Native American? They happen to all be a bit different)
I worry when I read this too, don't get me wrong, because I can clearly see the reality behind the supposition, but for clarity's sake I don't want to get sidetracked into worrying about the label of the method for sneaking religion into school. At least the proposal of ID allows for generalization and therefore promotes religious tolerance. If I had to choose between ID and straight Christian Creationism (again, which one?) I certainly choose ID, which could more easily be forced to at least acknowledge non-christian beliefs.