Friday, December 23, 2005

sanity prevails.

intelligent design got the thoroughly good kicking its proponents deserved. how arrogant and insular from the real world about them that they want the very definition of science changed so as to accommodate their beliefs. refusing to acknowledge or accept any line of reasoning that goes against them, the director of communications at the discovery institute's center for science and culture had this to say of the recent ruling by judge john e. jones:

robert crowther II: "the recent ruling on intelligent design is rife with false assertions and mischaracterisations of the theory of intelligent design." really? i read what judge jones said and it sounded very thoughtful and reasonable. unlike your complete and utter devotion to "intelligent design" - religion dressed up so as to further its own aims.

i say: it's precisely because intelligent design is not a valid theory that you lost. you and your experts have yet to even make a case for a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory. in science, a successful theory must stand up to scepticism and observation. theory is continually honed to provide a better explanation of observed phenomena. schools around the world have this as the very bedrock of education.

i have many theories about a lot of things i feel strongly about. no doubt some are near the mark and others are way off. very few of them should be considered anything more than ideas. i certainly don't want education to be changed to 'fit in' with my ideolegy.

science's greatest and unassailable strength is that it doesn't care whether anyone 'likes' it's results; especially those that would corrupt the way children are taught in an environment, hopefully free from radical intervention by extremists who don't possess the capacity to admit any wrong.

just what evidence would you accept mr. crowther? or isn't there any.......perhaps that's why sanity prevailed. i bet the fact that it was a bush-appointed judge didn't go down well, either!

after all, as your response so eloquently shows, if you've already made your mind up, what's the point of debate?

No comments: