Intelligant Design
A bitch by Prof. Tommy M.D

Right now in the States there's a big shitstorm over whether 'Intelligent Design' (the theory that nature and life is too complex to have evolved gradually and that there must have been an intelligent designer/God pulling the strings) should be taught in schools. The Kansas Board of Education recently rewrote the definition of science to no longer limit it to 'the search for natural explanations of phenomena', thereby opening the door for 300 or so Kansas school boards to authorise the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution in their science classes.

Because gosh darn it, if anybody knows the real definition of science, it's the Kansas Board of Education.

But hey, America always gets up to stuff like this, right? After all, this was the country that had a Supreme Court case arguing whether a statue of the Ten Commandments should be placed outside a court! Stuff like this could never happen in a country like Australia, where we respect the seperation of church and state, right?

At Pacific Hills Christian School in Dural intelligent design is taught in science classes. The school's principal, Ted Boyce, said he was not persuaded by the Australian scientists' and teachers' stance and it was appropriate to teach it as an alternative explanation for the origin of humanity.
from smh.com.au

Oh.

How come everything dumb always happens near my house?

We did not evolve from monkeys

Straight off the bat I'll add a qualifier so the 80% Christian readership of my blog doesn't put a Jesus curse on me - I have no problem with Intelligent Design or Creationism being taught in religion classes. If a parent sends their kid to a Christian school, it should be expected they learn about Adam and Eve and the rib and the talking snake and the divine birth of Ric Flair. Same as if a parent sends their kid to a Muslim school, they should learn about... whatever Muslims believe happened. And Jews should be taught their creation story, which I believe involve lots of gold. BUT, these stories are not science.

Intelligent Design advocates talk about a concept called 'Irreducible Complexity', saying that some structures are too complex to have evolved, like the flagellum of bacteria. They say that these structures have too many intertwined parts to have evolved piece by piece, and therefore an intelligent designer must have played a part. Of course, this theory has more holes in it than Paris Hilton, but it is an alternative to Evolution. It's just untestable, unobservable and unreplicable. You know, like a good scientific theory.

The 'Intelligent' Design Fossil Record

Evolution is the framework around which natural history is understood, you can't pick and choose which science you'll teach or believe. And you really can't be teaching impressionable children a completely unscientific theory in science class. And if you are, why just limit it to Intelligent Design?

Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation in science class?

Why not teach kids that we're all part of the Matrix and our body heat is being used to power machines that for some reason let us live and oh shit brain hurting matrix too complicated and crap?

How come nobody teaches my theory, that life is like a box of chocolates?

It's because teaching theories like Intelligent Design in science class is like teaching professional wrestling in P.E class. It just doesn't make sense.

Though that would be pretty wicked. I bet I could write 3000 words on why the WWF should never have given the World Title to the Big Show in 1999. That would be hot.

I've been talking up how one day I'm going to make a post on Gay Marriage to generate controversy and get lots of comments, but after the 116 comment bonanza that came about after REDACTED's anti-terror legislation, it's almost redundant. I don't think I could say anything controversial enough to generate 116 comments, and if I tried I'd just end up saying something stupid like George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People.

But what the hell, let's talk about homo marriage


HOMO MARRIAGEAn in-depth report by Tommy (hehe in-depth)


As I've said before on this blog, I'm a different strokes (hehe strokes) for different folks kinda guy. I don't care who you worship (unless you're a Mormon), who you vote for (unless it's Liberal) or who you want to shag (unless they're ugly). I also believe that people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, unless their decisions impact negatively on another person. Which is why I fire up when I hear Mosman Councillor's say brown people aren't welcome, or hear Muslim Clerics defend gang rapes, or see films or games or TV shows get unecessarily censored because they offend some people.

So in 2004, when the Howard Government introduced and passed completely unecessary legislation (they were outlawing something that wasn't legal in the first place) to ban gay marriage in Australia, and were supported by a Labor Opposition who didn't want to get on the wrong side of religious conservatives in an election year, I fired up. And though the legislation doesn't affect me (Freddy Fittler said 'no' when I proposed), I'm still fired up.


Why Freddy :(

Every citizen of this country, no matter who they prefer boning, should be allowed to get married. Every couple should possess the right to have or adopt children. Every couple in the country should be afforded the same rights in regards to superannuation, inheritance, visitation and medical decisions. State-by-state laws are insufficient in giving homosexual couples the same right as heterosexual couples. Discrimination based on sexuality is no different to discrimination based on race or religion, it is immoral and unjust in a modern democracy.

There is a religious argument against gay marriage, and I fully support the rights of churches and parishioners not to condone such unions. However, in the year 2005, marriage is not the sole possession of the Church. Marriage is a Government-recognised, legal agreement -it can be performed outside of Churches by civil celebrants. Churches should be free to express their beliefs in regards to same-sex marriage, but their opposition should not be a consideration in legislation. It's that pesky little 'seperation of Church and State' thingy that always pops up in democracies.

The argument that marriage is the bedrock of 'family values' and any moves to allow homos to tie the knot would 'undermine our social fabric' or would 'pose a threat to society' conveniently ignores the fact that 40% of marriages in this country end in divorce. Call me crazy, but I think if marriage was such an important part of the social fabric of our country, the skyrocketing divorce rate would have done us in ages ago. I fail to see how letting two people who love each other join the ranks is going to have a negative effect on society. How come the thousands of de-facto homosexual couples don't pose a similar threat to society? Do they only generate social upheaval when they share the same last name?


Sesame Street turned deadly when Bert and Ernie finally tied the knot

The above argument also just happens to be the same one used to prevent interracial marriages a century or two ago. A variation on that argument was also used to justify the White Australia policy. In fact, pretty much every advance in civil rights has been opposed by claiming a 'threat' to moral fibre or social values or the moral fabric or bedrock or tradition. Some things are just not worth defending.

I'll probably cop a bit of shit for saying same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. It is the worst example of discrimination in the whole bunch. The typical argument is that the most desirable outcome for a child is to have strong female and male role models. It was the same argument used to villify single mothers a few decades ago. And I agree, in a perfect world, every child would have a Mummy and a Daddy wholovedthemverrrryyymuch. And Daddy wouldn't drink. And Mummy wouldn't fuck Daddy's best friend. And they wouldn't get a divorce when the child was 12. And Mummy's new boyfriend wouldn't hit the child when he had a lousy day at work. But in case you haven't noticed yet, the world isn't perfect.

And studies conducted over the last two decades show little difference in the emotional or mental health of children raised by homosexual couples compared to their heterosexual counterparts. A child raised by pillow-biters doesn't necessarily become a pillow-biter. And while some of these studies are criticised for using flawed methodology, there are few studies which show a decidedly negative outcome for children raised by homosexuals.

Call me crazy, but I don't think the sexuality of a child's parents has anything to do with how well they raise their kid. And there are plenty of other scenarios worse than a kid having two mums or two dads, yet I don't see them being outlawed. If a homosexual couple do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple in regards to adopting and raising children, then neither should single parents.


So yes, that's about it.


Here is a picture of some lesbians.

Here is a guest blog from the man who couldn't be a plane because he only has a left wing, Monsieur REDACTED, The Thong-kicking Faggot

Matthew Reilly is The Worst Author Ever
An analysis of the Howard Government's new anti-terror legislation
By REDACTED
Just think for a moment that you didn’t have the fortune to be born white, and that instead you were born with brown skin pigment and had a penchant for turbans and facial hair. Well, if you did, and you lived in Australia, John Howards about to tear you a new one.


Luckily for this guy, not only doesn't he live in Australia, but he was killed in a hit-and-run accident in downtown Kabul in the year 2003.

Howards new anti terrorism laws that he is proposing to rush through the parliament in 2 weeks and the senate in 1 day are going to really suck. Lets look at a few examples of why they suck harder than John Howard when Bush is around.

Say my lady friend ‘skirt’ was of middle eastern appearance and could probably grow more facial hair than the members of ZZ-top. Well, under the new laws she can now be taken and held without being charged for two weeks. They don’t even need any evidence to do so. Once they have abducted her, she is only allowed contact with her family for two hours a day, and all conversations will be closely monitored. If she gets a lawyer, then there is no longer any lawyer-client confidentiality as their convos are monitored as well.


A phone tap

But here is the real kicker, after my lady friend has been gone a couple of days, and I’m starting to get a little worried, her parents can not tell me what happened. If they say that she is being held, then they face 5 years in jail. In Indonesia, a country that kills you when you smuggle drugs, you can mastermind large scale terrorist operations (and impersonate Dr Matt Destruction from the Hives) and get only 30 months in jail, where in Australia you get double that for informing people that their mates are being held by the government.

Cool. Isn’t our government up to date with the world.

Lets consider another example, say I’m wandering out of my favourite kebab place one afternoon. Due to all the hate crimes that have been directed at ‘darkies’ over the past couple of years I have now becme wary of other peoples actions around me. An unmarked van pulls onto the footpath, blocking my way. Instantly, several casually dressed people weilding guns that could have come out of a Matthew Reilly book get out of the van and start advancing on me. I drop my kebab and run in the opposite direction quicker than Bush could say “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”


We solve problems because we are problem solvers. We eat zucchini because we are zucchini eaters.

The men shout “stop” but I keep running away from the mysterious gunmen. They take aim and fire. Three fire shots that hit me in the chest and one fires several rounds into my head. As my brains begin to ooze out onto the pavement and mix with my blood that is now forming rivers along the cracks in the cement, the gunmen congratulate themselves on a job well done. They nailed a possible bad person as they fled from un-identified gun-toting henchmen. That’s right. Under these new laws, you can get killed for fleeing. And remember, they can pick you up without any evidence so ultimately, you can get killed for just wanting some Jimi’s.

There are pantloads more. Basically, now that he’s figured out a way to undo 50 years of union work in one sweeping lot of industrial relations reforms, Howard has now decided to move back onto a tried and true topic. That is, discriminating against people with better tans than you who speak more than one language.

I guess I’m thankful that I was born white. And Male. And superior to Richie in almost every way.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.