August 26th, 2005
|10:16 pm - "the complicated futility of ignorance"|
i honest to god have been listening to this song on repeat for about 40 minutes now.
cara sent me this link and it is amazing: flying spaghetti monsterism
it is not, however, a valid critique of ID because it is not actually an alternative to ID, but a subset of it. as i understand it (admittedly, not very far), Intelligent Design is not the argument that Big Daddy Christ made the earth in 7 days and hallelujah, but that some unspecified intelligence of some unspecified sort created the universe in some unspecified manner. i mean sure there are people who try to bludgeon you with their own beliefs on that front, and i have no idea what the kansas board is actually planning to install in their lesson plans, but ID itself is just another hypothesis, and could very well be correct for all we know. if anything, i would say that ID discourages leaning towards the godly - some aliens, working with the materials and natural laws at hand, might come up with the ludicrously complex systems of life that we have, but why would a supernatural omnipotent omniscient being create such an awful mess?
of course, usually in its defense people will start trying to disprove evolution, but that is because people are either stupid, disingenuous, or both. proving evolution to be false would not prove ID correct. it also would not prove christianity correct. or scientology.
update: okay, on consideration, it is a valid critique in that FSM specifically is just as scientifically valid as ID generally. this gets lost, for me, because he keeps saying that FSM shoudl be taught alongside ID, which makes no sense if FSM is a subset and not an alternative.
np: ol' dirty bastard - shimmy shimmy ya
I don't think he's trying to bash ID so much as he's trying to make the point that ID has about as much scientific validity as the FSM. Either way it's provided me hours of noodly entertainment :)
hey I posted that link weekses ago.
I think the whole point of mocking ID is the fact that the people who wish to implement teaching it are trying to get it added to the science curriculum, when there is no proof of ID, and science is all about proof.
i'm thinking of visiting next weekend!!!
|Date:||August 27th, 2005 10:42 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: but why would a supernatural omnipotent omniscient being create such an awful mess?
I've always thought that "why" is the one question that cannot be answered. Humans are just too limited, both in sensory perception and intellectual capacity, to ever find out why.
To continue on about limits ... dogs and cats are color blind, but we know that color exists. We also know that there are auditory frequency ranges that are too high for us (that dogs hear) and too low (that elephants hear). It just seems really clear that there is a whole range of possibilities and aspects of reality that we can never know about because of our limitations. Included in this is the endless attempt to come to conclusions about divinity, especially "why". How could we ever expect to understand the resaoning and methods of any presumed higher being, any more than a cat could understand why we bring it to the vet?