Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

At my last job, we all had to attend mandatory diversity meetings. It was supposed to address our similarities and not focus on the differences between us (customers/workers). It was also discussed that we possibly would be attending Ebonics classes. I worked in word processing and transcribed letters, statements, etc. The diversity training and the Ebonics discussion go hand in hand here so bear with me a second.

Once the diversity classes started so did the problems. Upper management (I presume) decided every month what month it was to be, such as American Indian month, Afro-American month, etc. Speakers would come in and we would sit and listen for an hour to the life story of someone pertaining to the topic. There were some very interesting stories. The first problem came in when someone wanted a Gay and Lesbian month. I am just stating what happened here and not how I felt about it personally. Well, that quickly was quashed. Then every kind of everything was suggested for the month's celebration. It got so ridiculous. It got down to every single ethnicity, color, religion, and even as to whether you grew up poor or rich. Finally, morale got so bad they just stopped the Diversity Classes altogether.

We (word processing) were totally against Ebonics. We were told we would probably be changing our way of communicating with our customers. We were going to be changing to make our business correspondence so that it would be easier for customers to read and comprehend. They were talking about throwing basic good English and grammar right out the window! Boy, did that start a mess! First it was ok, we need to go to Ebonics class, then American Indian, etc. I am in no way calling any other race, ethnicity, etc., of a lower standard. It was just brought out that each culture, etc., had their special ways of communicating.

Our argument then, as is still my argument now, is why lower the standards? That is exactly what we would have been doing. Lowering the English standards to accommodate those that do not have the same standards (for whatever reason).

I am not saying that teaching ID is wrong. I think it should be taught. I understand the need for it. I understand those that would want it taught as something other than science. In that respect, I am assuming those that don't want it called science would feel it is lowering standards?

The problem I see is just like the one we had at work, if any standards are lowered from what they used to be, then you open up one huge can of worms.

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design


Actually, somebody once did run some of Darwin's BS through one of the Internet language filters:



Makes a little bit more sense that way than in the original, but still not enough to convince anybody with brains and talent.

I am glad I never had to take that Ebonics course. I would have failed miserably, as I could barely get through what gungasnake posted.

When you think about it, Ebonics might be the natural language for "evolutionary biology". Only problem is, I watched Amos n Andy for years and never saw anything as stupid as evolutionism under discussion. I mean, I never heard George Stevens, or Amos Jones, or Andy Brown, or Algonquin J. Calhoun or any of those people say anything which required reversing all the laws of probability or anything like that.

Once again for anybody who might have missed it:

http://www.evolutionisimpossible.com

Understanding the rules of grammar in Ebonics may be useful in helping some people to learn "proper" English. And understanding the belief system of adherents to ID may help them to apply their knowledge scientifically.

There's nothing "unscientific" or illogical about ID. All that ID really amounts to is recognition of reality. For instance, when you look at a Maserati engine, e.g.



with all those double-barrel side draft Webber carburators and what not, do you assume somebody designed it and then engineers built it, or do you simply assume that the wind and rain sort of blew all that steel, aluminum, porceline, rubber and what not into the general form and shape of the engine?

Likewise the simplest one-celled organisms on this planet are vastly more complex than that engine. If the simpler of the two could not just sort of happen or evolve from raw materials, how could the more complex?

What sort of an idiot does it take to believe **** like that??

That's kind of harsh, isn't it gungasnake? I don't think differing opinions or views should qualify anyone as an idiot.

When's the last time you saw an engine mate with another engine and have a baby engine. And when's the last time a bunch of engines had to fight for survival to see which would reproduce more engines.

Without even addressing your usual flawed view of evolution, it's pretty obvious that your analogy just plain sucks.

Nice lookin engine though.

He hasta talk about engines, cause he can't produce anything to prove creation.

And if the truth be told, you or anyone else cannot disprove creation.

If you can't prove it, why should anyone want to disprove it? Do you understand anything about logic?

Usually, the person that makes a claim of something is responsible for proving their claim - not the other way around.

I am not an idiot, C.I. The truth is YOU CANNOT prove the creation theory is not correct. You CANNOT prove the theory of evolution is correct. Facts are facts. Do you understand that logic?

I would think that if you had proof of your claim, you would be happy to provide it, no matter who makes the claim.

You call an engine with carburetors intelligent design? Horrible misbegotten kludge-upon-kludge-upon-kludge for the best part of a century.

When intelligent design was propounded they cited examples which they said "obviously" were too irreducibly complex to have been the product of evolution and must have been "designed" all at once. Those examples were, most notably, birds and eyes. Evolutionary biologists and others promptly shot them down, demonstrating precursor stages for them, all of which were functional. As far as I can see, IDers no longer use those as examples (except for the hopelessly backward who can't keep up with the state of the argument). They next came up with the blood clotting cascade. Research in other animals shows that's not irreducibly complex either. When your "obvious" first cases and first principles, on which you build your hypothesis. turn out to be not at all "obvious", and indeed wrong, then your hypothesis is not at all "obvious", and the intellectually honest thing to do is just to admit you were misguided and abandon it.

When someone has a moment...
I know there's this debate about whether or not we should teach ID in public schools. Beyond that, though, (Momma, maybe you can help me out) what is the problem the Christians have with Evolution Theory? Does science lead people to question their faith? All I ever see is arguing, but hardly ever any real points being made. All these damned egos.

echi,

Actually, I don't have that big of a problem with the theory of evolution. Just as I don't have a big problem with the Big Bang Theory. All I know is God did create everything. I have no clue as to how He created everything. He could have used the Big Bang Theory, etc.

I have found that the biggest argument is whether there is a God that created anything at all and not how it was done.

Momma, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Just the fact that you have to get a different flu shot every year proves it. There is no evidence for creationism. That's just the fact.

Perhaps to you there is no evidence. To me, there is plenty of evidence.