Celsus Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 http://www.buffalobeast.com/88/sheeridiocy.htm Sheer Idiocy Scores Victory Over Evolution by Josh Righter Proponents of sheer idiocy -- the theory that people should spend their time thinking up and then discussing improvable, wacky ideas about things -- were dealt a small victory over evolution today in the formerly scientific hotbed state of Kansas, where the Board of Edukason approved new scientific standards in order to make evolution look silly. In contrast to evolution, which is only based on decades of research, thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers, and hard evidence including observed phenomenon and the fossil record, sheer idiocy is based on the more concrete method of stupid statements. "This universe is so complex, it must have been higher power been created by," drooled one member of the Board, smashing his head with an enormous block of carbon. "This higher power is so created, it must have been a universe." "Evolution," snorted another, guffawing and scratching his tailbone. "More like stupidlution." Other Board members, such as Republican John Bacon, were not so hard on stupidlution, but said that they merely wanted "all the alternatives" taught to children, who are typically not very interested in scientific theories, preferring sheer idiocy. "I'm just saying, sheer idiocy has just as much a place in Kansas high schools as evolution," he said defensively. "Probably even more of a place." The Board also took it upon itself to revise the definition of science, from "the search for natural explanations of phenomena" to "searching for answers in the Bible". It is also considering adding a clause in the definition of "mathematics" to include daily prayers. The sheer idiocy movement in Kansas comes hot on the heels of the one occurring in Dover, Pennsylvania, where a judge will soon rule on whether or not it is acceptable to teach the theory to high school students there alongside evolution and phrenology. There, proponents of idiocy say that it is just like any other scientific theory, and that they would back off if it was proven wrong, like evolution practically already is. "If someone -- say, a scientist -- could devise a way to disprove the fact that the complex is so higher, the universe was a power, then I would go home," said one man who is sitting outside the Dover courthouse where the judge will eventually decide whether or not he believes in idiocy. "But the fact that science just can't seem to make a rocket powerful enough to fly up to Heaven and ask the 'higher power' makes me think that I'm right." Critics of sheer idiocy charge that it is idiotic, and that they seriously can't fucking believe this. But they have the most powerful man of the free world to answer to -- President Bush has already endorsed teaching sheer idiocy in schools, as well as using it to enhance one's speaking abilities. "I think our children need to hear the other side of the coin," he said in August of this year. "Only then will they have all the qualifications necessary to become President someday." Tony Blair, Prime Minister of a place located towards the edge of the Earth, appeared to agree with the President, quite happily. "Oh, gosh," he said, laughing hysterically. "Oh my God." With the victory in Kansas and another possible in Dover, sheer idiocy would gain momentum, and begin spreading over the United States more than it already has already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 DAS CUNT! These fucking inbred fucks deserve what they get. At least the University of Kansas is hosting classes on the the mythology of creationism and ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megistias Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 With the victory in Kansas and another possible in Dover, sheer idiocy would gain momentum, and begin spreading over the United States more than it already has already. Followers are known as IDiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 http://www.buffalobeast.com/88/sheeridiocy.htm Sheer Idiocy Scores Victory Over Evolution by Josh Righter The Board also took it upon itself to revise the definition of science, from "the search for natural explanations of phenomena" to "searching for answers in the Bible". It is also considering adding a clause in the definition of "mathematics" to include daily prayers. Actually, Behe was great and very logical and very rational when it came to this point under cross-examination. Here's the outtake of from this trascript here. (Note: Opens a pdf.) KEY: Q = MR. ERIC J. ROTHSCHILD, ESQ. (For the Plantifs) A = Micheal Behe (Expert witness for the Defense, and founder of the Discovery Institute) Q: And as you said, your definition [of Science] is a lot broader than the NAS definition? A: That s right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community. Q: Sweeps in a lot more propositions. A: It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it. Q: In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct? A: Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy s definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways. Q: But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis? A: No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term. Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct? A: Yes. Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded,correct? A: That is correct. Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A: Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence... So there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Hah. Brilliant point, QS. If we teach ID, why not Astrology or bumps on the head? It's just as valid. Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Hah. Brilliant point, QS. If we teach ID, why not Astrology or bumps on the head? It's just as valid. Merlin Sad ain't it? Somewhere on this site I argued that we should, through the law of the commons, enforce biblical criticism in their churches by adopting the argument of teaching the public controversy akin to the paradigm that Behe and the Orwellian-named Discovery Insitute have launched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts