Tuesday, December 06, 2005

More From the Unintelligently Designed Creationists

Well in the past few months we've had two Creationism/Evolution trials of which only one was victorious in kicking Intelligent Design square in the god bags. Honestly, I never expected Kansas to vote in favor of Evolution. No chance in hell, pardon the pun, those ass-backward hicks were going to actually choose a scientific theory with decades of empirical evidence to support it over a theological notion of pure fantasy with no evidence to show for it.

You'd think in 2000 years someone would have been able to produce something of scientific merit to support their religious hogwash.

But Kansas did have something good come out of its plunge back into the dark ages. Since Creationism was being let back into schools, one professor - with a doctorate in theology from Harvard, no less - Paul Mirecki decided to teach a course in debunking Creationism. Unfortunately, it seems that the pressure from student opposition got the better of him as he fired emails at students in a religious group that his course would have been a slap "in their big fat face." He was forced to apologize to these fundie cretins and for his troubles, he was beaten with a metal object yesterday morning by two chickenshit hicks who obviously loved the teachings of jesus so much they had to resort to a lynching when they couldn't validate their own beliefs. Get well soon, Paul. You are a Real American Hero.

Side Note: After Professor Mirecki was forced into apologizing for his email, Kansas State Senator, and all around waste of life, Kay O'Connor stated that she was happy that the University cancelled his class and how critical she was about his hatefulness towards Christianity. We have yet to hear from this dried-up prune over the hateful actions that caused Professor Mirecki's injuries.

The other trial occurred in Pennsylvania and this time the Mind triumphed over the Spirit. But before it did, another professor, Scott Minnich, took the stand in defense of Intelligent Design. Scott Minnich is a genetic microbiologist who, in the same craptacular path of Behe, somehow got it into his head that Creationism was somehow a valid default if he could just show that Evolution was wrong. And like Behe, his plan of attack was to find something science couldn't explain yet and say "Eureka! I can't explain this, therefore God must have done it! I'm a Genius!"

So this whackjob gets on stage and blabs about how Intelligent Design is based on science and that "scientists" who stumble along the same path as he does are so horribly mistreated by the scientific community because they are the minority. Side Note: Don't you just love the way these Christian whackjobs pull out the racial abuse card whenever they are shunned for not being able to validate their notions. So being a man of science and finding out this whackjob does indeed have some rather impressive credentials in his background, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and I wrote him the following letter to request information that he surely must have had to show scientific support for Intelligent Design.
Scott Minnich,

Today you claimed, on the stand, that Intelligent Design was based in science and that whoever the "creator" was, was based on individual philosophy. While it is a popular opinion among creationists, I am curious to know how you defend that this notion holds water in regards to scientific responsibility.

You have done extensive and impressive research in the field of microbiology along the same deductive reasoning of Behe, but I am curious how you can suggest that even if Darwin and evolution are found to be, at the least, incomplete, that your notions of intelligent design are somehow valid or even accurate by default?

It seems to me that your notion of intelligent design is not based on science, but rather what appears to be, at the most, a lack of science. These concepts are not the same thing, Scott. Without direct validation for your notions rather than attempts to indirectly invalidate current, more supported, scientific theories, I can not see how you can expect anyone to see your notions as valid.

The Constitution gives everyone the right to believe in whatever we want to, Scott. A citizen in this country can believe in God, Allah, Shiva, Zeus or even purple leprechauns underneath the bed. Nothing however, gives anyone the right to automatically claim validity for anything that they may want to believe in. Tell me Scott, how can you believe that to assume otherwise is anything but just plain irresponsible?

But perhaps you have something to show us we have yet to see. Without showing evidence of how current theories are possibly incorrect, can your research DIRECTLY show evidence, outside of your personal religious faith, of a supreme maker of life? Do you have methods to produce this evidence? Do you have a controllable way of measuring this evidence? Can you reproduce this evidence in a controlled environment? Do you have the method for which to compare your findings?

I'm sure that if you were to produce something tangible that your notion of a "supreme entity" exists and that it indeed did create life as we know it today, that the scientific community would be more than happy to give you the credit you deserve for your work. If not, I have a suggestion for a scientific methodology that may help you out.

1. Study paranormal activities.
2. Find out if these entities are indeed the remnants of living people (aka souls).
3. Inquire as to the nature of the philosophies held by them.
4. Request an audience with their top official.
5. Ask the top official if your notions are correct.

Granted, my methodology may be in the minority of what is scientifically acceptable, but I am sure you can relate to that.

I hope that you will see that showing direct evidence of your theories is much more useful than assuming your notions, seemingly based in a lack of science, are correct simply by default. I wish you the best of luck with either your or my methodology. I hope you that you will find the results that you require for validation.

With best regards,

PS. I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the dean of your University and to the chair of the Tenure committee. I have heard that you have found yourself in a spot of hot water concerning your teaching methods. Perhaps by answering my questions, you can also relieve any fears they may have about your teaching abilities. Good luck, Scott. I'm rooting for you.

I have yet to hear back from Mr Minnich with the evidence I requested. I guess Schrodinger's Cat must have his tongue.
As a result of these trials, I am personally putting a 2000 soul bounty on every creationist's head to any deity or devil that smites them. Any deity or demon taking up this offer must show conclusive evidence that they were directly responsible for the "act of god" involved. An additional 500 souls will be handed over for video evidence of the creationist in eternal torment.

No comments:

make custom gifts at Zazzle