That’s What You Get

Devastating articles such as this one by Reason’s Ronald Bailey are what you get when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I would suggest that you not only read the article, but take time to read the many background citings. Find out just how over-your-head most of you are in even discussing this stuff.

Oh, sure, there are tens of millions, if not more, who believe profoundly that "Intelligent Design" is not only true, but is a perfectly valid scientific theory. But most are also ignorant of most of what constitutes science and how it’s conducted. High school lab just doesn’t give people anywhere near the background needed to understand how bad ID is, as science.

This gives us the very odd spectacle of layman believing ID based on [their knowledge of] science and the few "real scientists" who believe it, based on faith, because their faith comes before scientific observation.

Personally, my very biggest problem with this "theory" is that it’s a profound non-explanation that religionists have the effrontery to call "science." It’s an insolent slap in the face of science, the traditions of which are great and important. Science endeavors to actually explain things, not throw up its hands, essentially exclaiming that it’s just too complex to understand, so it must have been magic.

What an utter disgrace, smearing the human ability to gain knowledge in that way. Christians ought to be ashamed of themselves, first, and second, stay the hell away from science, the grandest traditions of which have always been to shed light upon their dark-ages primitivity.

Free The Animal is supported by readers like yourself shopping Amazon and CLICKING HERE to do so. Costs you nothing but sure helps out around here quite a lot. Anything you drop in your cart after clicking will support the blog, even if you don't check out for weeks or months later. Always appreciated.


  1. One of the drawbacks of ID is that it lacks the power to explain. The answer to every phenomenological question is "because that's how God made it," which shuts down further inquiry.

    There is no such thing as theistic science. It's an oxymoron.

  2. Teachers who want to teach ID who just teach religion anyway. It is good to outlaw it.

  3. Lute Nikoley says:

    "It is good to outlaw it." So much for the free expression of idea's, especially when it's one you people disagree with. That dumb bunny Albert Einstein believed in Itelligent Design, but I guess he must not have been a real scientist.

  4. Albert Einstein did not "believe in Intelligent Design." Utter nonsense. False. A big fat lie.

    See Krauthammer, for one.

    That's right up there with the "40 scientists set out to disprove the Bible" myth that I heard so often from the scientifically illiterate church crowd.

    Here's something that's true: Einstein was a socialist.

Speak Your Mind