Someone got angry about the evolution / intelligent design argument:
“The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject”
(Warning: makes fun of ID, with heaps of anger.)
Ha ha! That’s great! It just jumps right into it. I now have a new favorite phrase, too: “metaphysical wankery”
He He! “OW! MY KNEECAP!!!”
One of the best jokes ever.
I fell out of my chair. I had a similar reaction to another bitter website (which is still around) with a oath-littered rant about the south, morals and “losing” the election.
Quality… absolutely great.
Loose.
EDIT: Reading some of the comments, I want this on a T-shirt:
Quite amusing.
Another lovely anti-ID thingy is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, which states that a flying mound of spaghetti, two meatballs, and two eyes created the world by making a mountain, some trees, and a midget. More info about it can be found here: http://www.venganza.org/
Most of the anti intelligent design spoofs are funny. However, a few of them cross the line to what I consider anti religious hatred. I’m all for the funny ones. The hate filled ones are as funny as racism.
The ID supporters who want to put ID in text books do deserve ridicule. It’s not science. If you want to be taught ID or if you want your children to be taught ID then go to Sunday school at church or go to a private religious school. It’s not something that should be taught in public school as part of a science class. Now if the school offered a religious studies class that studies different religions then that would be different. But it doesn’t belong in a science class.
Reason, thy name is john_childs.
There is a difference. Hate is an understandable response to evanglism. It’s not desirable, or mature, but it is undestandable and in some cases justifiable.
There is a big difference between hating someone for trying to force their religion on you and racism. It’s not like racism is a response to someone trying to force you to be a different skin color. Hatred of evangelical religion, however, is hatred of someone trying to force you (in this case through school curriculum) to join their religion.
Hatred all around is an inappropriate response, but some types of hatred are more inappropriate than other types.
If you want to draw a parallel at all between the two subjects, the best one would be equating victims of racism hating racists to victims of evangalism hating evangalists. (even that is pretty sketchy)
Let me be clear that I have no desire to argue in support of ID theory because I’m content allowing the people in power to sort it out, and I’m just as willing to accept evolutionary theory as ID as possible explanations of reality. With that said, I have seen some pretty compelling arguments involving scientific evidence in support of ID. So, while ID may be partly religiously motivated, I don’t believe that ID is entirely unscientific.
Therefore, I think the important question to ask is not whether ID should be taught as science, but rather, why can’t the scientific community accomodate both views as potentially valid in favor of considering all possibilities? Doesn’t science aim to be the objective pursuit of knowledge? Then again, maybe the biological “evidence” used in the arguments is beyond my present understanding. But I still have this feeling that many scientists are too inflexible in their thinking, and the scientific community is the blind leading the blind.
I wasn’t trying to or intending to draw an exact parallel. Racism is different. I was drawing a parallel with the types of humor that a racist would find funny with the types of humor that the hate filled anti religion people find funny. The parallel being that it is not funny.
There are people who are filled with hate for people who believe in socially acceptable philosophies different than their own. The types of humor that those types of people create is not funny and the attacks they make on people by trying to be funny is not funny. I’ve seen some anti religious humor about ID that falls into that category.
I kind of dragged this thread off track with that comment. That wasn’t the intent.
This ran in today’s local paper.
And to keep the pot stirring… a paragraph from the rebuttal:
…continuing my train of thought from above. (Unicycling always clears my head. 
)
Doesn’t the scientific community play a similar role today as the Catholic church did in Galileo’s day? We all trust the scientific community, of course, because they base their claims on observations, which can easily be tested, and reasoning, which we can all do. But what if they all reason incorrectly, or at least by popular opinion, they reason incorrectly? Don’t we all reason incorrectly at times?
In the “real” world, people work, however, being one of those workers, I believe we usually avoid thinking at all costs. We go into auto-pilot. We just follow the usual unless something really unusual arises.
Now, what if scientists do the same? What if they sit in their government funded jobs, just trying to provide a good life for their children, following the status quo because it’s just plain easier. I often do this at my job. Life can be tiring enough without trying to “give 110%” at work. So why should I think most scientists would act differently?
We trust scientists because we too can reason, yet the objects of scientific knowledge have become so esoteric that the common man cannot fully appreciate many of the biological arguments for or against a given scientific theory of life. I’ve read arguments on both sides (ID and evolution) filled with scientific evidence, yet, short of interjecting my own biases, I don’t feel qualified enough to make a distinction between which is better, i.e., which will yield more scientific “progress.”
I agree with you Phlegm. I think that it’s mostly a matter of faith about which you believe in. The average person can’t go out and do research concerning either side, so the natural thing to do is to just go to one side or another, which at times can be incredibly polarizing. Each side has a specific belief system based on what they have been exposed to over the years. It’s really just a matter of wanting to find out where we came from and possibly where were going, and constant arguement from either side can be a motivator for better research, but in the end, it is what people believe in that decides what side they will go with. So who knows, but I just think that some people should relax about their siding and consider the other side instead of outrightly going against it.
I like it! I’d like Dave aka Gild the Evangilist to weigh in on this.
Billy
My stance is simple:
ID fits nowhere in the scientific process, has zero scientific credibility, and bastardizes scientific thinking.
The end.
oops, my bad. I gotcha now 
Who me?
Now what have I done?
I’m with both John and Seager on this one. i understood what John meant when he first made that comment and I understood Seager’s reaction.
Basically, I’m not bigotted, I hate everybody.
Mmm, yeah, that covers it.
C’mon Dave. Fess up. I want you to coment on evangelizing. I get acosted by Evangelizing Atheists like you and Uni57 Dave everytime I enter the subway, as well as when I’m unicycling in the park. The pamphlets even have your endorsement on the back!
Are you really the High Priest of Atheists???
Billy