A Response to J. Gorman's "Why We Should Be Teaching Intelligent Design to High School Students"

Applying Mr. Gorman's Logic Consistently

By Mike Larsen, published Dec 28, 2006
Published Content: 24  Total Views: 12,848  Favorited By: 3 CPs
Rating: 3.4 of 5
First, let me invite you to read Mr. Gorman's short article here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/101255/why_we_should_be_teaching_intelligent.html
so you do not come into this discussion blind. Or, if you do not feel the need to read it (I scarcely did, but having done so, I feel compelled by my moral scruples to give reply to this editor's pick), let me offer you an abstract.

Children should not be sheltered from ideas that challenge our traditional values. Evolution was rejected in its own day, and Intelligent Design is rejected today. Therefore we should teach Intelligent Design.

The fish have been released into the barrel.

Let us take the first argument listed above and approach it as politely and calmly as our rational minds allow, and apply its reasoning consistently.

Because we have neither qualifying evidence for or against, but because the idea is highly controversial, history classes should teach high school students that the Holocaust never happened. It is highly controversial, yes, but people certainly do argue both sides of the issue. And of course, Holocaust denial is being rejected by the West, but so was Darwinian evolution in its day, so because they were both rejected, they are of equal value. Also because they both question common conceptions of the world, they should both be taught.

One time in a dream, a pink unicorn told me that the Creature from the Black Lagoon generated the entire universe and everything in it in a single instant roughly 25,000 years ago. This, of course, offends the secular liberal atheist Godless communist homosexual feminist anti-God anti-man anti-capitalist anti-thought anti-life anti-love anti-humanity Illuminati Freemason Neo-Nazi CIA Bilderburg Vatican conspirators who work daily to drive God from the minds of our young children, and because it is so offensive, it should be taught. Because we can't disprove it rationally, the idea must be taught. Otherwise, we would ourselves be guilty of brainwashing our children with these atheistic liberal values.

A Response to J. Gorman's "Why We Should Be Teaching Intelligent Design to High School Students"

J. Gorman worryingly confronts the logical conclusions of his own arguments.

Credit: http://www.monteverdeinfo.com

Copyright: http://www.monteverdeinfo.com

Takeaways
  • 1. Intelligent Design has been roundly refuted every time it has come up in court.
  • 2. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a unification of two, obvious facts.
  • 3. If we apply J. Gorman's logic consistently, we ought to teach a Poseidon-based water cycle, to be fair.
Did You Know?
People sometimes argue about whether or not the Holocaust happened. Therefore, according to Mr. Gorman, we ought to teach Holocaust denial as an alternative, equally-viable historical postulate.
Resources
  • www.talkorigins.org
  • Richard Dawking's "The Selfish Gene"
  • Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species"
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
 
 
Lots of good information. The sudden opposition to evolution (which was taught in school for decades without a hitch) suggests a frightening anti-science climate in our country. Remember that civilization was doing well until anti-science forces brought about the dark ages. I hope it doesn't happen again.

Posted on 02/29/2008 at 3:02:29 PM

 
Are these anon. comments your own? Just curious. On several of your articles, there are non-ac comments with similar phraseology.

Posted on 04/25/2007 at 7:04:00 PM

 
PS Since Behe admits his view of science accepts astrology as a 'theory', I look forward to alchemy, phrenology, and dowsing classes in high school. If ID is allowed in, I believe ALL forms of pseudoscientific claptrap should be, as well. Now, about the FSM....

Posted on 12/28/2006 at 7:12:00 PM

 
Very well said! Refreshing refutation of the theocratic drive to dumb down serious thoughtful scientific inquiry by substituting dogma, mythology and superstition.

Posted on 12/28/2006 at 6:12:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
 
Most Commented On