Darwinists to Criminalize Intelligent Design

Evolution News & Views: European Darwinists Attempt to Criminalize Intelligent Design as a “Threat to Human Rights”

Years ago, The Australian Electoral Commission decided that Pauling Hanson had violated some rule somewhere and she was sent to goal for it. I thought (and still do) that she is basically retarded, her policies are racist and not well thought out and she relies on appealing to the other stupid people in our country. Even with all this, putting her in goal for basically political reasons was very wrong. We do not want to make political prisoners in a country where free speech, no matter how bad it is, is still worth preserving.

That said, on to the current topic. I’m as committed an atheist as reason would allow and think that belief in a invisible sky pixie is basically a mental illness. This however does not mean that other belief should be made illegal. Teaching or indoctrinating is another thing entirely.

I think children should be exposed to religions as ‘this is what some people believe’ type learning and the Socratic method should be taught as it seems like a simple way to determine the truth. Like Richard Dawkins, I believe encouraging a child to believe in a god is basically child abuse.

Informing people about Intelligent Design (Creation) is something that should be allowed, as long as its taught as a ‘this is what some people believe’ style. We should also cover other religions. Science class is NOT the place this should happen, possibly in history or some other social studies class would be more appropriate. An ethics class would also be appropriate as long as its covered with other meta-ethics. Supernaturalism is something that has been successfully argued against in many philosophical papers.

4 Replies to “Darwinists to Criminalize Intelligent Design”

  1. I decided at the age of 8 that I was a committed atheist. Even at that age sitting in a scripture lesson in public school I could recognise inconsistencies in the religious dribble that I was being fed as part of my so called education.

    In my mid 20s after exploring life a little, I came to the conclusion that atheism and theism were strikingly similiar in their commitment to an unproven (at least for the moment) ideal. I subsequently began to call myself agnostic.

    Now in my late 30s, after much more life experience, I struggle with the question of whether I should call myself atheist or agnostic. I suspect I am probably somewhere in between – but is there an inbetween?

    I agree that children should – infact must be taught about all major religions as part of their education. They have afterall historically been both important influences and stifling collars. They also pose contemporary challenges to the unity of humanity. I believe in science and basic scientific principles, and it pains me to see religion and science confused. Quite frankly the two share absolutely no common ground.

    Whilst I shake my head in disbelief at the attempted muddying of the line between faith and reason, I am glad that we are free to have this discussion. When I look at other countries I can’t help but think we have our secular laws to thank for this freedom.

  2. You know I am just playing, but there is a difference between 100% certainty and 99.99999999% certainty.

    When you have anything less than 100%, the problem is you don’t have a frakking clue about what occupies the 0.000000001%.

    BTW, I might take exception to your inference that the FSM doesn’t exist. But I couldn’t be bothered.

  3. I agree, but Like Douglas Adams when using the term “Radical Atheist”, I don’t want to be considered to be what most people call an agnostic.

    I would be happy to be proved wrong but currently the evidence seems to indicate there is as much chance of having a God as a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    I have read many religious texts and pro-religious arguments and the logic is always fallacious (at least so far).

    So, While there is a chance that there is a God, FSM, Teapot (in orbit around the sun) or any other things, being an atheist is still the most sensible position at this stage.

    You may or may not be able to confirm that I have a Purple Gorilla in my bath tub at home but you should be able to be 99% sure that i don’t. If you then described yourself as an agnostic about the Gorilla, people may then take that to mean that you just don’t know. I reality you can be 99.999% certain and this could/should be made clear with another word rather than agnosticism.

    PS. There is no such Gorilla.

  4. Did you happen to read Scott Adams post today on the logic of atheism. Basically, Adams argues that being a “committed atheist” (using your expression) is not rational.

    Adams said “One type of atheist is 100% sure there is no God. That is not rational because humans can sometimes be mistaken, and things can exist for which no evidence has yet been found.”

    So being a weak atheist or agnostic is far more rational!

Comments are closed.