Petition: Teach Science, Not "Intelligent Design"

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/919965448

 

Why dont we teach people how to shut up

 

I agree completely.

 

You want to end up with a bunch of Miltons wandering about sayin "He t-t-t-took my shtapler... it was one of those shwinline models that they gave out last year..."

 

teach them how to be confident then teach them to keep it to themselves
its inner strength
but maybe thats only grown,not taught

 

That petition doesnt make any sense.
Intelligent Design IS the best scientific explanation.
Its like saying 'Teach Science.. not Science'
Huh?

 

krin..
well done
probably the wisest comment on ths forum for ages.
Occam should know.

"Learn to care and not to care. Learn to be still."

Occam

 

We have two ears and just one mouth for a reason.
You can't learn while your talking, only when your listening.
Talk is cheap, silence is golden.
Even a fish won't get caught if he keeps his mouth shut.
Loose lips sink ships.
Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

milton didnt have a stutter.

 

In every classroom there should be these two books.

Self Aware Universe by Amit Goswami

and

Physics of the Soul by Amit Goswami


We should tell children that quantum mechanics PROVES that consciousness is supreme, thus the mystics are right. And we should teach that they can follow any religion they want because it all points towards the cosmic consciousness, the oneness. Of course, students don't have to accept this, just like students don't have to accept gravity, its still there THOUGH!

And furthermore, meditation should be taught in classrooms too!



But no where is the mention of quantum mechanics in this debate or mysticism... they make it look like it is between fundie christians and reasonable secular scientists. please...

THe cosmic joke will not be stopped, everybody is already laughing deep inside.

Material realism will die just like the earth is flat theory.

 

And volcano god's anger is the best scientific explanation for volcanic eruptions.

 

That does not follow.
IF you think it does - you completely missed what 'ID' means.
Try again.

 

Nah, I'd rather not "try again".

I don't like to waste TOO much of my valuable time on horseshit, thanks.

Religious excrement wrapped in pseudo-scientific jargon does not a science make, my friend.

 

Two questions:

1) What verifiable effects of this intelligent designer (rather than something else) are there in the world that I may go out and observe either instrumentally or via my senses?

2) What successful predictions can be made on the basis of this intelligent designer?


No effects, no explanation.

 

Good point, Gunison...

If one wants to consider something scientific then we must be able to test it scientifically. How would we going about doing this with an unnamed, unknown "intelligent designer"? Where is the current science backing this general entity?

 

This is how it works.
That some scientists have concluded that 'Intelligent Designer' is the best and most likely 'Scientific' explanation for complex working order and information is not debatable.
Thats already happening.
More and more all the time.
Its entirely possible there will be an actual Schism breaking the scientific community into two camps over this.
I think its already happening actually.
It definately appears that the establishement will simply insist superhard and repeatedly that Nothing will be good enough and ID will be denied no matter what.

Why do people like Michael Behe say things like "The best and most likely scientific explanation for complex life forms is ID"?
Complex working information is observed (Like a Cell).
Sad News.. without a time machine, he cannot observe the beginning.
As a good Scientist he then goes ahead to test and observe any other examples of complex working info. (example in which he can observe the cause).
Over and over, all the examples are shown to have on thing in common - an 'Intelligent Designer' caused the thing.
So
From a strictly scientific point of view its then concluded that ID is the most likely explanation available so far.

If you cannot understand why that IS valid science if there ever was such a thing then you are probably a) Retarded b) taking the position of the AntiScience people who intend to DENY DENY DENY even when stark reality has punched them right in the face with its outright existing factual fist.

What it is not.
It does NOT need, want, care or have any damm reason to be 'explaining what the ID is'.
Repeat.. it does not stop existing or 'vanish' just because you really really want to know 'who' or 'what' the ID is.

I can already hear it now: "Well ok Erasmus.. sure maybe in a sense that might be technically true but tell me this then.. who is, what is, where did, how did the ID come from'.
Answer: Wrong.

ID does not mean it is now a 'proven fact' and you do NOT even begin to grasp what is meant by 'scientific' if you are asking that.
It does NOT work that way.
Actually, Scientists CONSTANTLY have a 'best scientific conclusion so far.." which might sound so silly that they know is going to be superceded.
Tough!
The 'best solution so far' isnt up for a popularity vote people.
Maybe it IS WRONG but that is not the point.
The point is that from a totally unbiased research that conclusion is at least 'better than anything yet'.

Dont worry, in about 5-10 years ID will be considered the understood mainstream presumption in scientific circles.
You can see the 'writing on the wall' on that by the absolute screaming, lying, propaganda vomiting cowardly death that the Naturalist Establishment is going into.
Its hilarious.

Did you ever hear the expression 'Jump the Shark'?
The precise moment when naturalistic evolutionism 'jumped the shark' was the exact moment one of those pseudo-science desperados showed up at a Kansas City Council meeting in a 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' hat.
That folks, is the exact moment when evolutionism got its death sentence made official to the public.

Since you are gonna go check out ID theory and will find out that opponents have been furiously 'stacking' google (including using blatant tricks and dishonest means) including gangbanging the Wikipedia and turning it into a 'talkorigins' propaganda page... here are some sites which beat the fuck out of the religious belief of naturalist evolutionism.

Michael Behe http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html
The stellar www.trueorigins.org with more on the scam being pulled on you http://www.trueorigin.org/lerner_resp.asp
ARN's homepage http://www.arn.org/
Discovery Network explains what the hell Im talking about:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...id=3093&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage

BTW: As I mentioned earlier, the same fuckers who claim to be 'all about science' have been gangbanging the search engines.
One of their latest tricks is stacking the name of ID Websites and Authors in there metadata and site descriptions.
So when you google - you get ANTI ID Sites swamping the top.

Death Nail #293843: For people who claim that ID is a 'joke' they sure as hell are making a HUGE EFFORT to make sure people dont even know about it.
You would think they would LOVE to have students read about ID Theory if it really is so weak and feeble anyways?
Frauds.

 

We'll do anything it takes to inform the people of the bullshit you theologians try to push as "science".

 

This is a simple issue that must address two points:

1) What are some necessary conditions of science (or what are some necessary conditions that an account must meet in order to be a scientific one)?
2) Does ID meet these conditions?


In order to address this issue (rather than continue talking past it) you're going to have to do something other than argue from authority or merely redescribe some claims of ID.

I'm not asking after the origin of this designer (in much the same way I don't need to know the origin of gravity in order to measure its effects and make successful predictions about its effects on objects). If ID is a scientific account, then you're going to have to show what demonstrable effects there are within the world that may be shown beyond a plausible doubt to have been brought about by THIS designer (rather than something else).

That's a feature of science that makes it what it is (rather than somethineg else). If ID can't meet that condition (as well as the other condition I mentioned above), then it's not a scientific account. To say otherwise is analogous to claiming that it's possible to have a contested football game with exactly one team.

So never mind the arguments from authority, the restating of descriptive claims of ID or telling us that both sides of the issue have their share of yahoos. How does ID meet the necessary conditions of scientific accounts??

This is NOT a theological issue, it's a linguistic one.

 

1) What verifiable effects of this intelligent designer (rather than something else) are there in the world that I may go out and observe either instrumentally or via my senses?

It's everywhere, your rational thinking mind is the obstacle to seeing it. You must go out of your mind, LSD and other psychedelic drugs may help if one does not have the time to put in years of diciplined meditation... But I must warn you SOME cannot bear the SHOCK of witnessing what is BEYOND senses in the sensory word. The senses are all tools to seeing the cosmic consciousness that designed itself, for unlike some ID theories. There is no seperation between creator and created, there is no seperation at all.


The experiments in quantum mechanics first of all, prove that one needs an observer for the particles to fall in place, otherwises they exist only in potentialities. Of course you would need the tools that quantum physicts mess with to repeat these experiments personally. This proves the supremity of cosnciousness over matter, that consciousness is the ground of all being. For obviously there is an observer beyond space and time, who is US, we are IT, who set into place all the movements of matter and developments that lead to the formation of life and so on. It continues it's creation and destruction through us human beings, we are not seperate from the designer, the intelligent force that is present in all things... The universe is just one thought of infinite thoughts, there are plenty of other universes if one looks into M theory which is the only theory that brings together all the string theories. Thus more easily buyable then the string theories themselves.


The universe could not have occured through random processes of a material universe, because the cosmic coincidences accepted by materialists and mystics are too great... It would be like flipping a coin over and over again for millions of times and always getting heads... It's actually much more great coincidences in that, that were needed for life to evolve. Thus proving the need of an intelligent guiding force that is part of it all.


2) What successful predictions can be made on the basis of this intelligent designer?

And... the repeadily verified and accepted experiments of quantum mechanics that BAFFLE atheist and materialists because it seems like a paradox is one does not except the supremacy of consciousness.


" We'll do anything it takes to inform the people of the bullshit you theologians try to push as 'science'."


This is the statement one that clings so much to the ego plane of reality it is not funny. Your mind is clinging to the ego refusing to accept the real YOU. Such is way of it.

Just a puppet show, a puppet show of dancing particles of matter, objects in consciousness, simply thoughts of itself about itself that are itself for it is all. And all is it. Thus all form are puppets, The cosmic consciousness does all for all is it.

And it weaves it's "as the world turns" drama of this debate through you.

How horrible beautiful, how wonderfully absurd... such a cosmic joke.

You must lighten up with us in the magic theature and leave you mind at the door, otherwise you can not enter the mystic.

 

GanjaPrince, go back to smoking your herb and being "one with the world", ok?

Your New Age interpretative way of saving "God" is NOT what I am talking about here.