Grossly Misleading Headline in Washington Post
After my last post, I noticed the actual headline of the article in the Washington Post: "Kansas Education Board First to Back 'Intelligent Design'." Nothing in the body of the article supports this, nothing in the standards supports this and the Board was emphatic in deciding not to require teaching on intelligent design. But the headline fits so well with the spin the writer or the Post wanted to put on it. Who cares about the truth?
If you care about the truth, you can get more information here.
One of my previous posts on the Kansas situation is here.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 6:21 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Posting a Discovery Institute link under the heading of "truth" is laughable. They are a political organization forwarding an agenda. "Truth" does not enter in to the picture.
Additionally, the headline is accurate, because the board voted to change the definition of "science" from "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," to "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." There is only one reason for corrupting the defition of science in this way, and it is to introduce theories that do not seek natural explanations to what we observe around us, but imaginary and unsupportable explanations as well. Again, that is ID (among other fairy tale accounts of life's origins), and not science.
I will point you to my first at-length post on this issue at
http://stewiethegreat.blogspot.com/2005/05/evolution-is-still-right-and-theres.html
for further explanation as to why ID is a load of dog squeeze.
Instead of simply pecking away at questions in evolution we haven't answered yet, I challenge you actually to make a cogent case *for* ID as opposed to *against* evolution. Until you can do that, everything you write on this blog simply is making room for the purely speculative and unsupportable, and therefore not worth wasting anyone's time on.
Ah, but Darwin is purely speculative and unsupportable. Why should evolutionists get to stake a claim that literally requires a leap of faith without having to first provide empirical evidence to support your position? Why are Darwinists so afraid to allow freedom of thought and the exercise of free will? Granted, there may well be room for neither within the literal genetic "construct" of your worldview, but why not allow an honest debate and contemplation? If you are so certain of your position, what's the risk?
"Ah, but Darwin is purely speculative and unsupportable."
You're an idiot.
We know it occurs and has occurred as we know anything in the past has occurred, by the evidence that the events have left behind. By your logic, The Civil War "is purely speculative and unsupportable." Quit buying into the true anti-intellectual conspiracy in this country and read a textbook by an actual scientist.
"You weren't there, how do you know what happened" is the argument of intellectual cockroaches.
Stewie,
Why the attack? Why do you have to resort to calling someone an idiot? Also you can't compare the civil war to the subject. The civil war has written documentation and we humans were actually present at the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home