Comments on: Kentucky’s “Intellectual Freedom” Act

By: Thomas Jackson

Thomas Jackson — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 06:35:36 +0000

As an atheist science teacher I’m all for them giving me free reign to compare evolution and creationism. Let’s compare them in a scientific context! Lol. Actually, let me get at religion in a scientific context outright! Let’s see how long the religionists think that’s a good idea. =)

By: cue tip

cue tip — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:47:54 +0000

A man begins cutting his perceptiveness teeth the first chance he bites off more than he can chew.

By: Kentucky Follow-Up - Science and Religion Today

Kentucky Follow-Up - Science and Religion Today — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:27:49 +0000

[...] Kentucky’s “intellectual freedom” bill—which would have allowed teachers to discuss the “advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories” and use “materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning”—is dead. [...]

By: Death By Technique

Death By Technique — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:36:53 +0000

Yes, the Act is very well worded. Freedom from any intellectualism what so ever. Who needs intellect when you got baby jebus and a bronze age creator of a flat earth and thought crime. I’m glad they came to their senses and decided to liberate themselves from any academic or intellectual responsibility. Who needs that thinking craziness when you’ve got omnipotent, omnipresent imaginary friends!

By: Dean W

Dean W — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:09:54 +0000

I think compelling evidence for ID is that the human rectum has about the same normal modes as the human ear canal, meaning we’re exquisitely designed to hear each other fart.

By: Paul Burnett

Paul Burnett — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:48:06 +0000

R Hampton mentioned “ID scientist Casey Luskin.”

Casey Luskin has a degree in Geology and has precisely one (1) co-authored peer-reviewed article in an actual scientific publication; said article had nothing to do with intelligent design creationism – Casey Luskin is NOT a “scientist.”

Casey Luskin is an apologist / a public relations shill for the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism. The best term for him is “cdesign proponentsist” – Google the term if you’re not familiar with it.

By: An Atheist

An Atheist — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:16:13 +0000

Stephen Meyer is not an ID scientist.

There is no such thing as an ID “scientist”.

Because there is no science in ID.

It’s a religious doctrine.

And as such it has no place in the schools.

By: Dean W

Dean W — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:53:53 +0000

I think the reason we have deities and “intelligent design” & stuff is that our minds think of the abstract in terms of the concrete. like we experience social rejection as pain, and we have a variety of concrete metaphors for abstract concepts.

By: RickK

RickK — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:34:31 +0000

There are no “Design Theorists”. There are only people using science-like language to confuse the public with the intent of inserting the Christian god into public policy and public school science classes.

Stephen Meyer wrote “Signature in the Cell” to sound like a valid scientific argument, and didn’t link it to “God”.

Too bad he’d already stated in “The Wedge” that “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

So he’s claimed the purpose of “ID Theory”:

“To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.”

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Does that sound like science? No, it sounds like false advertising and dishonesty.

By: R Hampton

R Hampton — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:27:04 +0000

I created this illustration of Evolution vs. Intelligent Designm (http://www.reddit.com/tb/aym6x) comparing what each model would present in a hypothetical textbook. The fatal flaw – discretely and deliberately ignored by ID scientists – is obvious. As you can see, there is no indication of an Intelligent Designer on the Phylogenetic Tree because it shows that Evolution is responsible for Speciation; hence the title of Darwin’s famous book, On the Origin of Species.

ID scientist Stephen Meyer claims that Intelligent Design is necessary for “new body plans”. If so, then he needs to present such a model; for example, by removing Vertebrates from the tree, placing it as a separate tree unconnected to the first. ID scientist Casey Luskin’s Tree of Man (http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/6f4c5da45d2de0a3c8c83f71f5a20b6f/misc/phylogenies.gif) is a first step, but ID must present a model for all of life.

I really do want to see what ID theorists propose as an alternative, but there is a very good reason why they have neglected to produce one: If IDers agree with the Evolutionary Phylogenetic Tree, then they also agree that evolution was responsible for life’s diversity; that Man descended from Ape. However many (most?) of their Christian supporters would find this unacceptable and thus turn against ID. However, if IDers disagree with the Evolutionary Phylogenetic Tree (because an Intelligent Designer periodically intervened), then they can present an alternative model illustrating where and when this “magic” happened (e.g. Casey Luskin’s Tree of Man), but then this would be easily disputed by Science.