N O U N : A design blog by Oliver Oike

N O U N : A design blog by Oliver Oike header image 2

"What Would Flying Spaghetti Monster Do?"

August 31st, 2005 · 2 Comments

It’s rare that I find myself navigating the murky waters of politics and religion, because, well, I have absolutely NO PLACE commenting on either, given my complete lack of religious upbringing and cynical view of politics, but I couldn’t resist posting something about the hottest new right-wing creationist myth being sold all over the States: “Intelligent Design.”

For the evolutionists out there, it’s basically like trying to debate with someone who completely ignores what you say and repeats the same argument over and over, which, according to professional debaters, breaks the first rule of logic: “…to say that the other side is wrong is not enough. You have to show why the other side is wrong.” The “intelligent design” apologists search for cracks in the armor of science, and do their best to expose anything that is or isn’t there. Seriously. Read this NYT article.

So that when the scientist rolls his eyes with the stupidity of it all, the intelligent designer has achieved his goal of being able to say “See? We’re arguing! This is a controversy.”I could go on trying to explain how ridiculous this all is, but many others have already done so, with much more clarity:

Wikipedia: Intelligent Design Entry
New York Times: Unintelligent Design
New York Times: Show Me the Science
Wired: ‘Swift Boating’ Science

Botanical Society of America’s Statement on Evolution
Speak Up: Almighty Designer, The

Flying Spaghetti Monster
Wikipedia: Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory
Boing Boing’s $250,000 Intelligent Design challenge
Kottke Pads the Pot Too

Zefrank has FSM’s back

Ok, ok, enough already.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Tags: Archived from Blogger · Culture · Funny · Ideas · Surprising

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Kevin // Aug 31, 2005 at 9:58 am

    A friend of mine, a philosophy prof at UBC, takes ID fairly seriously (you can see a paper of his here: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Johns_DynamicalComplexity_020102.pdf) . Whether this is “science” or not I couldn’t say (this stuff is way beyond my understanding!). But it seems there are some very smart people considering ID without bias or agenda.

    There’s a lot of vitriol on both sides of the ID debate. I don’t think much of it has anything to do with the actual ideas of intelligent design.

  • 2 oliver // Aug 31, 2005 at 10:22 am

    Cool! I had a quick look. Yikes.

    That it is being studied without bias or agenda is the key. My main contention is with the political agendas being played out, and the very loose logic being displayed.