Bill Maher ID joke nails it
- Thread starter hgc
- Start date
hgc said:
Not to defend creationists, but if we took that attitude on every alternate theory right out of the gate we'd never have advanced to the Copernican model of the universe. Seems a tad smug and emotionally defensive, IMHO.
Point is, what scientists "know" today is often "known" to be wrong tomorrow, regardless of religious content of either theory.
Jes' sayin'. You may now commence the barrage.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
The problem is, ID isn't science. The only "balance" in a science class to teach is competing scientific theories.
An old example of this is, what is light? One theory was that light was a particle, the other theory was that light is a wave.
Jocko said:
The problem is, ID isn't science. The only "balance" in a science class to teach is competing scientific theories.
An old example of this is, what is light? One theory was that light was a particle, the other theory was that light is a wave.
Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
Agreed. At best, ID is a philosophy and should be treated as such. But the impression I get is that it's not the religious angle that so rankles a lot of people, so much as the temerity to question an accepted theory.
Using your light example, for instance, it wasn't that long ago that scientists "knew" it was a wave and therefore believed the whole of creation was filled with an infinitely rigid material called the ether, so as to explain its transmission through vacuum. Of couse it was bupkes, and we now have a broader take on the nature of electromagetism.
So... invisible buddy in the sky, or invisible material covering the entire universe. - which sounds sillier to you?
corplinx said:
Agreed. At best, ID is a philosophy and should be treated as such. But the impression I get is that it's not the religious angle that so rankles a lot of people, so much as the temerity to question an accepted theory.
Using your light example, for instance, it wasn't that long ago that scientists "knew" it was a wave and therefore believed the whole of creation was filled with an infinitely rigid material called the ether, so as to explain its transmission through vacuum. Of couse it was bupkes, and we now have a broader take on the nature of electromagetism.
So... invisible buddy in the sky, or invisible material covering the entire universe. - which sounds sillier to you?
Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
So if another team of researchers provides data suggesting the core DOES move slower, that would not be an alternate theory? I mean, if Maher wanted to poke at ID, I'm all for it, but at least couch the subject properly.
Sheesh, what a crappy joke.
hgc said:
So if another team of researchers provides data suggesting the core DOES move slower, that would not be an alternate theory? I mean, if Maher wanted to poke at ID, I'm all for it, but at least couch the subject properly.
Sheesh, what a crappy joke.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
What rankles is that it clearly doesn't have any of the attributes necessary to actually be an acceptable, rational argument for anything, religious or otherwise. It's plainly babble, yet it is revered in some circles as if it was significant.
The ether idea was reasonable at the time because it explained what they knew (mostly). That they subsequently reviewed its existence in light of new facts is sign of positive steps forward.
False dilemma?Jocko said:
What rankles is that it clearly doesn't have any of the attributes necessary to actually be an acceptable, rational argument for anything, religious or otherwise. It's plainly babble, yet it is revered in some circles as if it was significant.
The ether idea was reasonable at the time because it explained what they knew (mostly). That they subsequently reviewed its existence in light of new facts is sign of positive steps forward.
Suddenly
No Punting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
The buddy. It just isn't necessary and is a complete fabrication.
The ether is at least a falisifiable hypothesis, one that was deduced by other observable data, and the existence of same can disprove or support other theories.
The buddy can't be disproven by facts. He just retreats and re-invents himself. That idea exists completely outside of science and is simply a rationalization.
That scientific knowlege is proven wrong isn't the weakness of science... it is the strength. Using past discredited beliefs to justify current unsupportable belief is the silliest idea of all....
Jocko said:
So... invisible buddy in the sky, or invisible material covering the entire universe. - which sounds sillier to you?
The buddy. It just isn't necessary and is a complete fabrication.
The ether is at least a falisifiable hypothesis, one that was deduced by other observable data, and the existence of same can disprove or support other theories.
The buddy can't be disproven by facts. He just retreats and re-invents himself. That idea exists completely outside of science and is simply a rationalization.
That scientific knowlege is proven wrong isn't the weakness of science... it is the strength. Using past discredited beliefs to justify current unsupportable belief is the silliest idea of all....
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
My brother-in-law didn't laugh, but rather explained how it is entirely possible to build a fire on a frozen lake and not be worried. (Duh...been there, done that.)
I obviously touched a nerve of an ice fisherman, so he didn't like the joke. Sort of like touching the nerve of a rightie with a joke that pokes fun at Bush.
Reminds me of a Jeff Foxworthy joke I told my brother-in-law. To paraphraze, Foxworthy was invited to a campfire on a lake in Minnesota (frozen in the winter of course). Foxworthy turned down the invitation. "And they say we're dumb in the South!"hgc said:
My brother-in-law didn't laugh, but rather explained how it is entirely possible to build a fire on a frozen lake and not be worried. (Duh...been there, done that.)
I obviously touched a nerve of an ice fisherman, so he didn't like the joke. Sort of like touching the nerve of a rightie with a joke that pokes fun at Bush.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
Yeah, here it comes... you're determined to make me sound like a creationist. Last word from me on this: the thing is, without hindsight, it's difficult or impossible to tell the difference.
That, and it WAS a crappy joke.
LegalPenguin said:
Yeah, here it comes... you're determined to make me sound like a creationist. Last word from me on this: the thing is, without hindsight, it's difficult or impossible to tell the difference.
That, and it WAS a crappy joke.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
Agreed. At best, ID is a philosophy and should be treated as such.
Actually, ID is biblical creationism in a cheap tuxedo and one of those nose-and-mustache gag glasses, hoping not to be recognizes.
It is really proof of evolution: in the 80s, "Goddidit" creationism was pushed through the schools, until the courts said it's religion and to stop that nonsense. So they came up with ID instead.
Creationism says that in the beginning the Lord God created man, plants and animals out of the dust of the ground with his infinite power.
ID, instead, says that billions of years ago an intelligent creator created DNA and life out of inorganic chemicals with his superhuman engineering powers.
Clearly, these are completely different theories. Any relation is purely coincidental.
Agreed. At best, ID is a philosophy and should be treated as such.
Actually, ID is biblical creationism in a cheap tuxedo and one of those nose-and-mustache gag glasses, hoping not to be recognizes.
It is really proof of evolution: in the 80s, "Goddidit" creationism was pushed through the schools, until the courts said it's religion and to stop that nonsense. So they came up with ID instead.
Creationism says that in the beginning the Lord God created man, plants and animals out of the dust of the ground with his infinite power.
ID, instead, says that billions of years ago an intelligent creator created DNA and life out of inorganic chemicals with his superhuman engineering powers.
Clearly, these are completely different theories. Any relation is purely coincidental.
Suddenly
No Punting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
That past scientific "knowlege" can later be proven wrong has absolutely no bearing on whether belief in a presently completely unsupportable claim is warranted.
The way to tell the difference has nothing to do with hindsight... just evidence.
You are focusing on the result rather than the process. If one holds a belief at present without any evidence whatsoever, that belief is unsupportable.
Just because later on perhaps evidence is found to support that belief does not retroactively make that person believing that claim somehow supportable. Likewise in reverse...
The joke does hit the point.
Those that advocate ID as an alternative to evolution are basically saying:
"Scientists have strong evidence that we have evolved by lower life forms. President Bush said it is important that we teach that we have not."
All that is left out is "why" Bush et. al. want to teach science against evidence. That is the point of the joke, to highlight the basic irrationality of the ID stance.
It wouldn't be hard to come up with a "theory" that the core of the earth appears to be a solid iron ball because God wanted to disguise hell.
Or that gravity is really the force of God trying to keep us from entering heaven before our appointed time...
Why don't we? Because that is stupid, just like using ID to rebut the idea of evolution... Or is it that since we've been wrong before we better let these theories be taught in school lest we discourage skepticism of currently accepted scientific knowlege?
Only because you do sound like a creationist as you are suggesting the same arguments.Jocko said:
That past scientific "knowlege" can later be proven wrong has absolutely no bearing on whether belief in a presently completely unsupportable claim is warranted.
The way to tell the difference has nothing to do with hindsight... just evidence.
You are focusing on the result rather than the process. If one holds a belief at present without any evidence whatsoever, that belief is unsupportable.
Just because later on perhaps evidence is found to support that belief does not retroactively make that person believing that claim somehow supportable. Likewise in reverse...
The joke does hit the point.
Those that advocate ID as an alternative to evolution are basically saying:
"Scientists have strong evidence that we have evolved by lower life forms. President Bush said it is important that we teach that we have not."
All that is left out is "why" Bush et. al. want to teach science against evidence. That is the point of the joke, to highlight the basic irrationality of the ID stance.
It wouldn't be hard to come up with a "theory" that the core of the earth appears to be a solid iron ball because God wanted to disguise hell.
Or that gravity is really the force of God trying to keep us from entering heaven before our appointed time...
Why don't we? Because that is stupid, just like using ID to rebut the idea of evolution... Or is it that since we've been wrong before we better let these theories be taught in school lest we discourage skepticism of currently accepted scientific knowlege?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Luke T. said:
Ballsy of him.
(Sorry, sorry, sorry...)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Maher ID joke nails it
It would indeed.
And if a team of ID "researchers" provides data suggesting anything whatsoever that will be a) a tremendous surprise to me, and b) a huge methodological leap forward.
Jocko said:
It would indeed.
And if a team of ID "researchers" provides data suggesting anything whatsoever that will be a) a tremendous surprise to me, and b) a huge methodological leap forward.
My alternate theory is that Bill Mahr is an ass.
But sometimes he's on point.
as for light, how about waves of particles?
as for god making the ballsy move of putting it there 6000 years ago I think that's circular logic.
(And that was a bad joke...)
But sometimes he's on point.
as for light, how about waves of particles?
as for god making the ballsy move of putting it there 6000 years ago I think that's circular logic.
(And that was a bad joke...)
Cain
Straussian
