So here’s another evolution vs. (un)intelligent design post. Now I know that no moron in support of teaching (un)intelligent design is going to read this post & come around to a sensible way of looking at things. By the very act of believing, in (un)intelligent design, it shows that they do not have the capacity to reason much higher than the apes. (that we descended from by the by.)
So first we’ll look at what a theory is in the scientific realm;
‘A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.’
Evolution is the only theory that fits all the information that we have. It is a theory that is not fully complete, thus not yet scientific law, but it is on par with the theory of relativity for reliability (maybe even more so, it’s had an extra 50 years of refinement). However everything about the theory fits neatly within all of the data. Almost every single day we humans come up with new data & knowledge and ALL of it point to evolution. There is not one bit of data that makes evolution an invalid theory. Every day that we unravel another genome, breed a new funky mouse, discover some new variation of life, it all makes the theory of evolution stronger.
(and for any of you fucking monkeys out there who think ‘well, it just doesn’t make sense to me’. It doesn’t have to make sense to you, if all of the scientific theories had to ‘make sense’ to you then we still wouldn’t have figured out to bang the fucking rocks together.)
(un)intelligent design does not fit any data. There is not a single set of datum which points toward ‘a guiding hand’ in life. (un)intelligent design is just fucking hope & a smile, hope you didn’t blink because if you did you missed our ‘proof’.
Well, here it is, the (un)intelligent design proof;
‘well, it makes sense, I mean come on guys, there’s just no way something as complex as me could be made any way other than by god, oops, I meant (un)intelligent design!’
(hey monkey-boy, this seems a bit vain & prideful? Aren’t those sins? You ignorant fuck!)
But there is one thing on sciences side (not including some of the best minds this world has ever known, facts, reality, et al.), there is a legal definition of what constitutes science here america:
1)The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
2)The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
3)There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
4)The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
Hmmmm…….looks like (un)intelligent design doesn’t stand up to a single one of them, so if it can’t stand up to any of the criteria for what makes science, then why should it be taught in science class?
Should we teach about the ‘ether’ & how fire is made because of phlogiston as well?
So please, for love of the (un)intelligent designer, shut up, go home.
You’re going to lose, don’t waste my tax money on lengthy trials that only prove you’re an idiot.
FUCKING!
MONKEY!
-De
