New Intelligent Design…BaaaD Science

“We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us.” Nietzsche

The creationist and Intelligent Design pushers continue their desperate fight against science and rationalism. The recent sample I came across is filled with doublespeak and lies disguised as truths. It will be available the end of this month from Tate Publishing Co.There will three books in the series and they carve up Evolution and call it the ‘old physics of cause and effect.’ Seemingly aimed at the High School market, the excerpts I read made me more confused than I already am:)

Chapter 3 Book 1 The Quest for Right
The Agency of Revitalization

“The fact-finding investigation concentrates on the importance of the earth’s inner heat and reveals the hitherto unknown mechanism of said heat. The surprise findings, taken from the pages of the Bible, tighten the reins on those theorists who permitted their imaginations to slip past the boundaries of true science, beyond the pale of investigation. The vain assertions of geologists are pitted against classical physics, the old physics of cause and effect, and the scientific record of creation, the Bible.”

And this, from Chapter 4 Book 3
Filing Fictions Away
” The outlined premises, based on the dictates of classical physics, justify the disposition that the scientific record of creation, heretofore considered religious dogma by obstructionists and not worthy of scientific regard, remains intact as a responsible and verifiable truth; the evidence upholds the fact that the moon was formed within a 24-hour period only 6000 years ago. The conceptional errors of Baldwin are annulled by the bona fide truths presented by the investigation.”

Now of course I have only read excerpts from the authors page, and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that he is saying that magic is the new science. This is going to screw up more teen-age brains than all the pot in California.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Advertisements

About the word of me
Interested in family and friends,grandchildren, photography, darkrooms, history, archaeology, scuba diving, computers, software, fast cars, journalism, writing, travel, ecology, news, science, and probably most other subjects you could think of. Did I mention family and friends?? I require iced tea or cold brewed coffee and a internet connection to be fully functional. Sometimes there are just so many words in my head they spill out.

5 Responses to New Intelligent Design…BaaaD Science

  1. The Quest for Right, a series of textbooks based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has accomplished that which heretofore was thought impossible: to level the playing field between those who believe in creationism and those who preach evolution.

    A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE ID MOVEMENT:

    In 1981, the State of Arkansas passed a law (Act 590) requiring a balanced treatment of creation science with evolution science in the public classrooms. The A.C.L.U., “American Civil Liberties Union,” a prominent camaraderie that has successfully obstructed the cause of Christians on several fronts, filed litigation in the Federal District Court to prevent its implementation. The merits of the suit-called “Scopes II”-were not singularly a constitutional issue per se and were reduced to two major confrontations: (1) is creation science really science; that is, established on an accountable scientific basis; or (2) is it merely religious fundamentalism supported only by the histories preserved in the Bible and faith by its advocates in said testimonies?

    The balanced treatment issue was resolved by the court’s redefining of the accepted usage of science, originally defined as “the state or fact of knowing; knowledge.”

    Science is currently held to be “the systematized observation, identification, description, and experimental investigation of phenomena.” To the basic sense was applied the court’s ruling of a more comprehensive language.

    The following assertion incorporates a reasonable exhibition of the determination and attitude of the court: science is that which scientists are generally associated with and perform. Simply stated, the criteria by which knowledge may be chalked up as science incorporates one or more of the listed factors:

    1. Science is spearheaded by renown scientists.

    2. Science is performed in accepted scientific laboratories.

    3. Science is funded by governments, colleges, and universities.

    4. Science is taught in public classrooms.

    5. Science is published in scientific papers and journals.

    6. Science is routinely presented in the media, to include televised nature documentaries.

    7. Science is any other entity that draws from the basic philosophies and presuppositions espoused by the expressed units.

    The aforementioned entities represent a shutout; the court’s criteria leave little latitude for divine intervention or the miraculous and, hence, any creationist views on the origins of man and the universe. The ruling of the court was summary: since creation science is neither associated with nor performed by court-accepted scientific entities, creation science is not science but religion and religion, as determined by the Supreme Court, may not be taught in the public schools.

    A subsequent balanced treatment act from the State of Louisiana was heard by the Supreme Court in 1987. Justice William Brennan, in the majority opinion, concluded that creation science is “religion” and religion, as ruled, may not be instructed in the public classrooms. The barring of creation science, however, is not irreconcilable. The high court left open the possibility that any views on origins, be it creation or otherwise, may be taught if established on sound scientific principles. Therefore, if creation science (Intelligent Design) were founded on a scientific basis, drawing from a continuum of defensible, established truths, it would be justly qualified as science and science may be taught in the public classrooms.

    Although evolutionists seized the moment, finding favor with a sympathetic judiciary, the battle for the minds and souls of the innocents in the classrooms is far from conclusive. Fielding the issue once again, the definition of science, “that which scientists are generally associated with and perform,” is re-evaluated in The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, so as to determine if said definition is arguably correspondent or else gravely overstated.

    Bear in mind that the backbone of obstructionism is not evolution per se, but “electronic interpretation,” the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. Again, the philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of obstructionism be judged on these specifics: (1) “electron interpretation” and 2) “quantum mechanics.” Conversely, the view of Christians that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view, however, will not be tested by the definition of science, as before determined by the court, but by the weightier principle of verifiable truths.

    You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime that awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right. I am the author, C. David Parsons.

    Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com/

  2. Olorin says:

    The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science:
    1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
    2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
    3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
    4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
    5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
    6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
    7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
    (Robert Parks, Chronicale of Higher Education, 1/31/03)

    I’d say “The Quest for Right” scores about 5.9. Certainly higher than Velikovsky or cold fusion.

  3. thewordofme says:

    Hi Olorin, I think cold fusion may have more going for it. I tried reading Velokovsky once and my head started to boil. Thanks for your comment.

  4. bethwack hondurian dirgelike variety electrolyzability hatchettolite tomography speeder

  5. thewordofme says:

    Oh my God….what have I created here?
    esaw delawa tatlo apat anim pito walo seeam sampo

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: