It has been revealed that the Gordon Brown Government is endorsing former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to become EU President.
In a move that will be fiercely opposed in Europe, current UK Government ministers are lobbying behind the scenes on Blair's behalf.
Latest from The Cheers MUSIC
NewNobility Genre:Indie New Nobility peace-rock band
http://myspace.com/newnobility...
Rad Wolf Genre:Other Hailing from Fort Worth Texas, Jacob Shelton makes music in ...
JO&CO Genre:Acoustic Five diverse musicians who bring their own style to everythi...
Shannon Corey Genre:Pop Mix together some Tori Amos, Fiona Apple and Ben Folds to ge...
It used to be that there was a whole lot of education that went into becoming a scientist.
To be a scientist you actually had to study stuff. And not just easy stuff like "Who is the President of the United States?" (Hint: She was in Earth Girls Are Easy and A League of Their Own).
As a scientist, you were expected to know chemical formulas such as H-2-0 (water) or 2-Pac (rapper).
People
considered scientists to be experts and consulted them on important
matters like what kind of hangover you'd get if you mixed lemonade and
Jagermeister or how to set up a crystal meth lab.
But alas, Frodo, that was in the olden times...
These days anyone can weigh in as a scientific expert, especially in places like Kansas where "intelligent design" is now a mandatory part of the science curriculum.
The last time the educational bar was set this low was when the Scarecrow got a degree from the Wizard of Oz.
Supporters
of intelligent design argue that the universe is so complex that it had
to be designed by a superior being (like Rush Limbaugh or Barbra
Streisand) or super-intelligent aliens (like Henry Kissinger or Salma
Hayek).
Intelligent design enthusiasts want their views to be
presented as an alternative to the science of evolution. The idea here
is that one theory is just as good as another, regardless of any
supporting evidence. Kind of like Ashlee Simpson being advanced as an
alternative to Melissa Etheridge.
Hey, we get it. The universe is amazingly intricate. So is the plot line in Lost - that doesn't mean it was designed by aliens...although Tom Cruise might give you and argument on that.
Comparing the two sides of this debate seems to favor evolutionary theory...
First off, Charles Darwin had a beard; a good thing when you want to be taken seriously as a scientist.
And Darwin's beard wasn't some scruffy beard like your grandmother has. Darwin's
bushy beard spoke to his stature as a scientist. It was as if he were
saying, "If I wasn't an expert in my field, I couldn't walk around
looking like the lead singer of ZZ Top, could I?"
In contrast, the evangelical preachers who promote intelligent design usually sport shiny suits and ties with huge knots.
If
the knot in your tie is the roughly the size of a St. Bernard's head,
it is very difficult to be taken seriously on any topic, let alone the
origins of the universe.
Secondly, Darwin's book has a weighty title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.
The textbook used for teaching intelligent design is Of Pandas and People. Let's face it, you can't possibly hope to be taken seriously if your science book has a title with that kind of alliteration.
However,
the main problem with the view that the universe was created by a
superior being is: who created the superior being that created the
universe? And who created the superior being who created that superior being?
This
is what's known in scientific circles as an infinite regret. As in, "I
regret ever trying to have an intelligent discussion with a religious
zealot."
Still, the creationists might be right...
The
world is a magnificent and complex place. We marvel at the color and
symmetry of a leaf in autumn. We feel humble when we gaze up at a
star-filled night sky. We watch in awe as a sunrise unfolds in wisps of
clouds and a symphony of pastels.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the beauty and intricacy of the universe: god is gay.
Since
the universe is so well-designed, it's unlikely that only one gay god
was involved. Think about it. There are five consultants on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
It's
time we started teaching children that creating the universe was too
important a task to be assigned to just one god. You pretty much need a
grooming guru and a culture vulture at a bare minimum.
So, come on, Kansas. Get with the program. One theory's just as good as another, isn't it?
I agree, there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or anything else really that can't be proven. Scientists should be allowed to do experiments to prove a God or whatever if that is what they want to do. Its all pretty ambiguous anyway.
doc says on 2006-07-01 20:49:43 about intelligent design
(1).Why the conflict: Darwin made no assertions concering the oigins of life. His book is entitled "The Origin of the SPECIES..." (my capitals), not "...of Life."
(2) What experiments would help science students understand ID? I have one: (a) weigh a pot of dirt; (b) wait until the Designer has an organism step (crawl, ooze,....) forth; (c) weigh organism and remaining dirt.
Should equal original dirt, proving conservation of mass.
(3) Why only ID? In my world literature and my mythology classes, I have taught ID, as well as the Mud People, the Coyote, the Turtle, and many other cosmological explanations for the origins of life. Any cosmological belief is as worthy of respect as is ID.
(4) By definition, the origin of life cannot be replicated - but science, not to mention our way of life, requires replication. The phone will have a dial tone. Of the 100's of explantions of the origins of the world and of us, ID may very well be THE true one.But it ain't, can't, and shouldn't be, science.
isaac says on 2006-06-23 17:19:08 about
Genius! They say the universe was designed for a purpose but they can't see the purpose... it's obvious that it's just to look simply divine!... gawd is gay lol!
Just wondering says on 2006-06-20 10:14:39 about Consistancy
Ok, let me get this straight. Because the designer is not subject to scientific study, he can not exist, and to propose otherwise is unscientific, right?
Well, then I guess the Big Bang is also unscientific, and has taken us back to the Dark Ages. After all, can we scientifically study the cause of the big bang? Can we know what existed prior to the big bang? If the universe was created by a big bang, that had a cause that is not dependant on time in space, that implies some sort of reality outside our universe. But that can not be studied, so it can not be true.
Or maybe, science can accept that something unknown exists beyond the detectable universe, but it is a scientific fact that, even though we have no way of knowing, nothing that exists beyond our universe can possibly be intelligent. Because something intellegent and powerfull beyond our universe, implies life beyond Time and space and origins. Oh no, that's too much like.... God. Under no circumstances, no matter what the evidence is, can God be a scientific conclusion. A big bang that happened in nothingness for no appearent reason, that's a valid scientific conclusion. Intelligence beyond the universe? No way.
