wasting bandwidth since 1999

Signs of Intelligent Life in Utah

While the Kansas School Board is trying hard to dumb down it’s science classrooms, the Board in Utah voted unanimously to continue teaching real science to it’s students. Good for them. They understand what this witness was saying at their hearings.

"By definition, science does not attempt to explain the world by invoking the supernatural," University of Utah bioengineering professor Gregory Clark told the board.

"Intelligent design fails as science because it does exactly that – it posits that life is too complex to have arisen from natural causes, and instead requires the intervention of an intelligent designer who is beyond natural explanation. Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing."

Unfortunately, one state senator is threatening to place a referendum on whether to force this crap into the schools on the ballot.

Buttars insisted that all he wants is equal time in the classroom – and it doesn’t have to be the science classroom.

"Whenever anyone challenges the evolution people, they go berserk," he said. "[Evolution] is not a fact . . . We’re dealing with censorship here. If we only taught Shakespeare in English class, that wouldn’t be fair."

More people need to go berserk when idiots like this guy attempt to substitute faith-based science for the real thing.


  1. Dean Shareski

    I find it amazing how fearful many are about considering a very legimate view. I would challenge you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Behe

    Professor Behe’s videos and writings I’m sure will challenge anyone about this issue. I always find it interesting when people resort to name calling regarding these very controversial issues.

    Many ID’s were argue about the scientific validity of the “theory of evolution”. What are people so afraid of?

  2. Tim

    Oh, but I have read about Professor Behe. Quoting from your link to the Wikipedia:

    Professor Michael J. Behe (born 1952) is a controversial American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is noted for introducing what he calls “irreducible complexity”, an idea that life is too complex at the biochemical level to have evolved.

    Behe is professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. [at which no scientific research takes place!]

    Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity has been rejected by most in the scientific community, many of whom consider it to be creationist pseudoscience.

    As to being afraid, I have no fear of a real scientific controversy. When creationists “intelligent” designists have some actual evidence to support their concepts, I’ll be there to listen.

  3. Dean Shareski

    I’m not a scientist but I have heard many arguements and claims from both sides. I’m okay with hearing both sides.

    It’s pretty arrogant to completely dismiss ID as a viable theory.

    I would think that even if like you say, it has no actual evidence, the fact that so many subsribe to it warrants consideration and examination. To simply say we won’t teach it because it does not fit into some models of scientific evidence is not the type of education I’d want for my kids.

    Simply not agreeing with a theory shouldn’t dismiss it. That’s what seems to be happening here. While you and others might claim there is no actual evidence. There are many who would argue the exact same thing about evolution.

    Talk about narrow-minded.

  4. superdestroyer

    Dean Shareski

    I will believe ID when the ID proponents come up with the mechanism that the Intelligent Desinger uses to increase the complexity. They also need to build a detector to detect that mechanism. If they can do that then ID should be taught in science class.

  5. Tim

    I’m a patient person. I can wait a while for the supporters of ID to produce some real scientific evidence for their hypothesis.

    But if this is going to be a discussion of science, let’s at least use the correct terminology. Scientists use the term “hypothesis” to mean a concept with little or no supporting evidence. ID is, at best, an hypothesis not a theory.

    And Dean, I can also tolerate a few insults.

  6. Dean Shareski


    I apologize if I hurled any insults and not having a scientific background really proves I don’t have much to say in terms of these complex issues. But what I have heard and read has convinced me that ID is worth exploring. I use the term narrow-minded because its often used by liberals in describing the right when they in fact are guilty of the exact same thing.

    Even if as you say, (I’m assuming you have more of a scientific background and thus can speak more “intelligently” than I can) and it’s not scientifc isn’t it worth examing if not simply to prove its lack of validity?

    Given that so many others are subscribing to it, it seems to me that students should be exposed to it and allowed to make some choices for themselves. I’m quite certain if you really did take time to study the hypothesis/theory of ID, you’d have to acknowledge the possiblity.

    I’ve been taught the theory of evolution and have recently spent some time examining ID and I don’t see why evolutionist don’t do the same. I suspect that most of them possibly including yourself hasn’t investing much time. Watch this video http://secure.verimax.us/idnet2/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=45&IDNETsid=bbd34fb6137dea973f23c72219e3bf91
    as one resource that examines the issue.

    If you can tolerate a few insults, I hope you can tolerate an education system that is tolerant of various perspectives…hypothesis or theories.

© 2021 Assorted Stuff

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑