the blogger would like to point out, that Newton's Second Law is a scientific law not a theory.
caught up in the storm of passion, i made the mistake of using it as an example.
Newton's second law is, and I quote: "The second law states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. " The equation of the law is : Fnet = m * a
where Fnet is the net force, m= mass and a = acceleration
the point of the example however was to critisize peoples trust in science in many other areas.
granted newton's first and second laws are not a direct affront to individuals religious beliefs, but they are the basis for most physics and astronomy (and you know how those astronomers are always CLAIMING that the universe was created from a big bang.
as a scienctific theory, intelligent design begs the questions: where did the designer come from, get his base material, and most importantly where did he get his knowledge to design an ecology and life?
questions like these can be tossed aside in a theological, and even a philosophical debate, but science is grounded in a little more tangibility than either theology or philosophy.
when one of these individuals can give me definitive answers, that do not seem dubious at best or down right silly. then perhaps i will listen to their "theory" a little better.
of course, these folks don't know what a scientific theory is, but.... no matter.
they'll all burn when trogdor comes.
intelligent design.....
man i hate this debate, and it goes on, and on and on and on and on.
in an effort to make america the most ignorant country in the world, as well as still being the most powerful and the wealthiest, school boards, pta's and school districts are trying to muck around with sciences classes.
the lastest of these attempts, is a court case in pennsalvania.
seems the school board in this particular school district want a disclaimer read at the begining of the evolution package, stating that evolution is a theory.
well no shit!
science is based on theories:
biology, chemistry, physics, astromnomy.
most of the 'accepted' triumphs are either theories, or whole based on theories.
yet when teaching newton's second law, they don't have to make a disclaimer about it being a theory.
nor do they have to make the same statement about the astrononmy courses when discussing black holes or quasars, though no scientist has ever been up close and personal with these things to actually see if thier "theories" (oh god... it's a theory too) are correct.
intelligent design.
sure, teach your kids intelligent design, encourage them to learn. but don't expect it too be taught in a science class.
science is based off empirical observations, and tangible experiments with test and control subjects (and yes they have used these for dna testing, and genetics which does tie into evolution).
folks would have a hard time getting a more powerful entity than themselves to agree to be either a test or control subject for an experiment.
has it occurred to any of these people that the intelligence of this design might actually be evolution?
if i were going to make a self perpetuating system, like a planet with an ecology, i certainly wouldn't set it up so i have to press a button everytime a change occurred.
hell no, i'd set it up so it takes care of that itself.
thinking of that... reminds me of sim earth.... the easiest way to win that game is to set things up and let them be.
it'll all be taken care of for you.
but no matter, lets keep reminding folks that science is flawed, and perhaps give them the rudimentary farm tools, and technological levels they need to go with the supersiticious primitivism that they are being taught.
crown sunkist
it's growing cold in the valley now.
nights are begining to chill through the shifty layers of clothing.
i have my new laptop, and boy am i happy.
the db really helped me out on this one.
the canyon was a flame, beautiful, gorgeous.
the air was crisp, but warm.
the evening wanes now.
i'm off too bed.
