Intelligent Design in Missouri: A Proposed Solution

The creationists – sorry, IDiots – are at it again. This time, it’s Missouri that’s the chosen battleground, and once again, their complaint is that science classes are unfairly dismissive of their preferred evidence-free fantasy.

We’ve been over this before, far too many times, and the reasoning in Kitzmiller v Dover looks pretty robust to me, so Rep. Rick Brattin is either totally ignorant  (aside from his promotion of ID, I mean), incredibly optimistic, or deeply cynical, blowing a fundie-friendly dogwhistle in the knowledge that he’ll never have to actually follow through with it and take responsibility for the resulting mess. Whichever it is, it’s quite revealing that on identifying what he sees as a discrepancy between typical beliefs in the US and what science tells us, Brattin thinks it’s the science that needs to change.

It’s puzzling that people believe this sort of crap in the 21st Century, and utterly depressing that they think it’s appropriate to promote their unsubstantiated ideology, in science classes no less, despite the very clear message of their own constitution. But while this proposal is a serious threat that needs opposing, I can’t help thinking that maybe it would be even better to give Brattin exactly what he says he wants. He says his bill’s about teaching both sides of the argument “in an objective manner”, and it includes instruction to “give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design” – so what would that look like, exactly?

My first thought was a lengthy explanation of all the evidence for evolution, then the heading Evidence for Intelligent Design, followed by a blank page, but that could be described as unequal, so how about asking the same questions about each theory in turn? Maybe something like this:

Brattin can have that for free. We’ll have a balanced, objective comparison in no time.

Note: It seems that the text I worked on was lost in some housekeeping. I’ll work on replacing it, but in its absence, I’d just like to say it was the funniest thing I ever wrote. 😉

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

About Recovering Agnostic

I'm Christian by upbringing, agnostic by belief, cynical by temperament, broadly scientific in approach, and looking for answers. My main interest at the moment is in turning my current disengaged shrug into at least a working hypothesis.

8 responses to “Intelligent Design in Missouri: A Proposed Solution”

  1. bigstick1 says :

    This is great. I like the visual display. Not only can you talk about it then you can show it next to each other. I always liked how you can show x,y, and z. Then point to creationist. They point to thin air.

    • Recovering Agnostic says :

      Yeah, I’m saving Rep. Brattin some trouble. I know it’ll take him a while to get his bill passed, so in the meantime he can print off a load of these and paste them into every science book as an addendum.

    • thinker says :

      Hi. I’m a creationist. Yes, you are absolutely right – we do point to thin air! Just like we use time (which is not provable, we only see the evidences), and we talk about darkness (an absence of light which cannot even be measured so far as science goes…we only measure the presence of light). If God is real, he’d have to be made out of something better than me, for sure! So, that’s where I stop looking for something I can hold, or see, or stuff in a jar, or under a microscope and have to believe there’s something greater than me, and maybe its just a little too great for my being (so tiny and inexperienced compared to the universe) to completely be able to grasp, understand, and explain within the few decades I am allowed to live.

      However, the creationist theory is actually involves less faith to believe than the Big Bang theory if you consider it… The scientific definition of a fact is something that is provable or observable, yet, how many of us humans were there when “Big Bang” supposedly came? About…oh, say, zero. It’s based on faith because no one can totally, completely “prove it.”

      Same with creation too. I wasn’t there, you weren’t there.

      However, I find it easier to believe that God was there and made everything rather than believe I somehow, through astronomically impossible luck, wound up a human, with her own finger print, her own purpose, her own personality, and even a desire for something called truth.

      And yes, there will always remain the question: “Where did God come from?”
      But the question: “Where did the gases that caused the Big Bang (or whatever else has been proposed as having started the universe) come from?

      Both are unsatisfactory if you want to believe in something you can prove.

      Well, you’ve “read” my side now…

      Blessings!

  2. Syxx Sense says :

    I said this many years ago on The Talent Show, I will only take Intelligent Design seriously when science classes allow students to create men out of mud and women out of spare ribs.

    • Recovering Agnostic says :

      Ha! Nice idea, but do you seriously want teenagers to be able to create people? Did we learn nothing from Weird Science?

      • callmequirky says :

        That’s a very good point about teenagers. You forget to hold one doll and all of the sudden you’ve created a bunch of party crashing, motorcycle riding, thugs. Probably don’t have the attention span just yet.

  3. callmequirky says :

    I don’t know much about intelligent design. I know that I’ve heard about it here and there. More than anything it is my firm believe that if any religion is going to be taught in schools then ALL religions need to be taught in schools. Much more from a sociological aspect, definitely not science. Possibly even psychological.

    • Recovering Agnostic says :

      To be honest, I think this tells you all you need to know about ID. It’s an unsubtle Trojan Horse to get Creationism into schools. And yes, I’m with you on teaching all religions, or at least major world religions and philosophies. And I love the idea of teaching it from a psychological point of view.

Love it? Hate it? Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: