Nutjobs need to go

I stumbled on a blog today, aptly titled JunkYardBlog, and it made me shake my head and sigh. The main contributor is a hard-core right-wing nutcase, and almost everyone who posts comments on the blog is either a hard-core right-wing nutcase or a hard-core left-wing nutbar. Now, that would be bad enough, but the frosting on the cake is that every one of them appears to be a fiercely BITTER nutjob. These are the people that make trouble for everyone else, really. Left, right, I don't care. Extremists (nutjobs) need to go. End of story.

To continue the nutjob theme, let's move on to the schools, shall we? I was listening to Talk of the Nation: Science Friday, which is a weekly program on NPR, and they were talking about including Creationism or other such theories in with the teaching of evolution. In fact, the Dover Area School District (near York, PA) now forces teachers to include the "Intelligent Design" theory in science class, along with evolution. That's weird... I thought creation stories belonged in Religions of the World class, not science class. Oh ho, now, don't get offended, what I'm saying is simply this: Science is just that... science. It's based on a little thing called "The Scientific Method" which involves testing, more testing, testing your results from your test, and the gathering of empirical evidence. Now, how are you going to even begin to test the "Intelligent Design" theory? There is no scientific way to go about it, no solid evidence to gather, nothing but hypothises' can be made about it. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not dumping on the "Intelligent Design" theory, or any theory of creation held by religious people, they just have no place being taught in a SCIENCE class. However, people like "Clark Smith", in a post on this bulletin board, in response to this message, says that I'm horribly wrong:

In your 11/24/1999 you use an interesting tandem of thoughts: "unwise science"

That is precisely the problem. Science is not wise at all. It is deaf and dumb to experience, revelation, and intuition.

Your "coalition" is by remarkable in the jargon that you employ: "an environment of mutual understanding and interaction between scientific and religious conceptions of creation."

There is no scientific conception of creation and you know it. That is the major scientific flaw! The laws are very rigid in your factworld - you can't get something from nothing.
[note from Nate: A factworld is apparently some sort of strange, bizzaro world, where things are based on "fact". Creepy.]
Let's lay the ax at the root. Science has no concept of how the original "stuff" originated. You merely have postulations of cycles. You pick the current cycle for this eternity and hope in future exploration for a real answer.

Do you know what we in religion call this forward-looking confidence? F A I T H

You see that's what we have in common - FAITH. But you won't admit it. And let's tell each other the truth.

SCIENCE IS A FACT SYSTEM HELD IN FAITH
RELIGION IS A FAITH SYSTEM HELD IN FAITH

Even if religion was 100% wrong in what we know and believe, at least, at the very least, we are honest and consistent. Until science is ready to admit that it is uniquely unqualified to postulate on the origins of "stuff", please keep your coalitions out of the classroom and keep your scared, smug smiles confined to the labratory.


Want more: http://www.dutchfork.com/creation.html

I'll add more later. Gotta go.