I just hate to read the news and get so angry that I want to grab a chain gun and go cleanse the gene pool. Thank you Google News for upsetting me with this article about Bush wanting alternatives to Darwinism taught in school.
President George W. Bush stirred the debate on the teaching of evolution in schools when he said this week that he supported the teaching of alternative viewpoints—such as the theory of Intelligent Design—to help students “understand what the debate is about”.
There is no fracking debate, unless you’re trying to pull out that evolution is a theory, not a fact crap. Yes, evolution is a theory—but so is intelligent design. But when you look at which one holds more ground as a theory, the one with more verifiable evidence is most definitely not intelligent design.
And for those of you who say that intelligent design allows for evolution as long as a supernatural being of sorts is there to guide it, I say that you’re in violation of Occam’s Razor keep your crazy ideas to yourself.
[Addendum]
Once again, thank you Google News for feeding me more fuel on the subject:
The most prominent debate is underway in Kansas, where the conservative state board of education is expected to require the teaching of doubts about evolution to public high school students.
Someone should just fracking dissolve the Kansas state board of education and start over with some new people because the current board is borderline deserving of a good swift kick in the reproductive organs.
[edit: Aug 10th]
Rob pointed out to me that I shouldn’t be using Occam’s Razor to end my argument, which is sadly true, so I’ve modified that part of the post.
“Yes, evolution is a theory—but so is intelligent design.”
Careful, there! A theory is required to make testable predictions, which intelligent design does not do. There’s no reason even to lend it credibility by putting it in the same sentence with evolution.
I thought someone would mention this. Unfortunately, under some definition of the word theory in english does not necessarily imply anything scientific. Someone could go around talking about “The Theory of Intelligent Design” and they’d be 100% correct in that moniker because it is “an unproved assumption (6b)”. My line that you quoted above was intended for this poor-man’s definition of theory, since most people involved in half of this debate don’t really care about the science that goes into scientific theories.
I think your being a little harsh, but I do agree. “The Theory of Intelligent Design” is in no way specific, and is based around a desire not to step on anyone’s toes. This is problematic since it makes the “theory” vague. Dictating that something that is scientifically more precarious than current theories is clearly a political move. This is why science and politics should keep there distance. But this will never happen.
Also I think I should point out that Occam’s Razor is not a clear cut rule, but a rule of thumb. The best explanation being the simplest isn’t always the right explanation. my point here is that you can’t really violate Occam’s Razor.