I keep hearing the media cover these retards, and I'm trying to figure out why anyone would believe this bullshit---it's on the level of Tone's nonsense.
Here's a mission statement from the Intelligent Design Network:
Ok, the first paragraph is uncontroversial. I agree that using the scientific method leads to objectivity, and a big question in both anthropology and religion is the question "where do we come from?" Ok, I agree.
Second paragraph is when they lay on the obfuscation and bullshit. What are they talking about "constitutional neutrality" for? Science functions completely outside of government, and needs not to be neutral to the constitution. What...does gravity only work because it's respectful to Jesus as well as Agnostics? What about in other countries that don't have constitutions...does science not apply to them because they have no constitution to be objective to? (Unless they are talking about a different definition of "constitutional". Maybe they meant it as a noun, and were talking about going for a neutral walk in the morning... <_< )
And I still can't figure out how you would apply the scientific method to something untestable like the idea that God Created Everything. Science requires testability.
So, what am I missing? Why is anyone paying attention to these retards, and changing laws in order to get it taught in schools?
Here's a mission statement from the Intelligent Design Network:
Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?
We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.
We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.
Second paragraph is when they lay on the obfuscation and bullshit. What are they talking about "constitutional neutrality" for? Science functions completely outside of government, and needs not to be neutral to the constitution. What...does gravity only work because it's respectful to Jesus as well as Agnostics? What about in other countries that don't have constitutions...does science not apply to them because they have no constitution to be objective to? (Unless they are talking about a different definition of "constitutional". Maybe they meant it as a noun, and were talking about going for a neutral walk in the morning... <_< )
And I still can't figure out how you would apply the scientific method to something untestable like the idea that God Created Everything. Science requires testability.
So, what am I missing? Why is anyone paying attention to these retards, and changing laws in order to get it taught in schools?
Comment