Stupidity Abounds

So this morning my car got hit by a pickup truck driven by an 82-yr old male driver. Complex explanations about the accident scenes are not important.. all that is important is that I was not at fault... according to me, two eye-witnesses and a police officer. But the other driver kept insisting that he was not at fault. The marks on his car and on my car show very clearly that he hit me, that he veered off his lane, confirmed by two independant eye-witnesses.. But still old man no agree. Well, hard luck to him, he's the one that got cited not me.

But that just proves what I mean about stupidity! It is EVERYWHERE!! It is scary!! God, to meet intelligent people is like a breath of fresh air. It is rare, that's why I want to keep in touch with them. And dumb people are too many so I want to stay away from them.

--- Wish I had the "Mobile Eye" on to see if I could have predicted that guy's obviously terrible driving behavior. Will write more about the Mobile Eye on some other post.. It's this latest research tool that I have and man, I think we can do wonders with it. Am rarin' to get some data.

Stupidity part 2 -
Ths article in the New York Times about the current case in Pennsylvania over teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. Sorry to those who've read this, but I'm pasting the entire article here...

Witness Defends Broad Definition of Science

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: October 19, 2005, From www.NYT.com

HARRISBURG, Pa., Oct. 18 - A leading architect of the intelligent-design movement defended his ideas in a federal courtroom on Tuesday and acknowledged that under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design.

Prof. Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, is the first expert witness for the school board of Dover, Pa., which is requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design in biology class.

Under sharp cross-examination by a lawyer for parents who have sued the school district, he said he was untroubled by the broadness of his definition of science and likened intelligent design to the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe because both initially faced rejection from scientists who objected for religious and philosophical reasons.

"Intelligent design is certainly not the dominant view of the scientific community," Professor Behe testified in Federal District Court, "but I am very pleased with the progress we are making."

Intelligent design is the belief that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that they were created by an intelligent force of some kind. At issue in the lawsuit is whether the concept's introduction into biology class is an abridgment of the separation between church and state.

The board voted last year to require that students in ninth-grade biology listen to a four-paragraph statement saying that there are gaps and problems with the theory of evolution and that intelligent design is among the alternatives worth considering. The statement said that among the resources available in the school library for further study is an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People."

In two days on the stand, Professor Behe has insisted that intelligent design is not the same as creationism, which supports the biblical view that God created the earth and its creatures fully formed. The Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is a religious belief and cannot be taught in public school.

The cross-examination of Professor Behe on Tuesday made it clear that intelligent-design proponents do not necessarily share the same definition of their own theory. Eric Rothschild, a lawyer representing the parents suing the school board, projected an excerpt from the "Pandas" textbook that said:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."

In that definition, Mr. Rothschild asked, couldn't the words "intelligent design" be replaced by "creationism" and still make sense? Professor Behe responded that that excerpt from the textbook was "somewhat problematic," and that it was not consistent with his definition of intelligent design.

Mr. Rothschild asked Professor Behe why then he had not objected to the passage since he was among the scientists who was listed as a reviewer of the book. Professor Behe said that although he had reviewed the textbook, he had reviewed only the section he himself had written, on blood clotting. Pressed further, he agreed that it was "not typical" for critical reviewers of scientific textbooks to review their own work.

Intelligent design, according to Professor Behe's definition, is a scientific theory that is able to accept some aspects of evolution, like change in organisms over time, but rejects the Darwinian theory of random natural selection. He said intelligent design "focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose."

Scientific critics of intelligent design - and there are many - have said for years that its proponents never propose any positive arguments or proofs of their theory, but rest entirely on finding flaws in evolution.

In an attempt to pin Professor Behe down, Mr. Rothschild asked, "What is the mechanism that intelligent design is proposing?"

Mr. Behe said: "It does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how these structures arose." He added that "the word 'mechanism' can be used broadly" and said the mechanism was "intelligent activity."

Mr. Rothschild concluded, "Sounds pretty tautological, Professor Behe."

"No, I don't think so," he responded. He likened the process to seeing the sphinx in Egypt, or the stone heads on Easter Island, and concluding that someone must have designed them.

Listening from the front row of the courtroom, a school board members said he found Professor Behe's testimony reaffirming. "Doesn't it sound like he knows what he's talking about?" said the Rev. Ed Rowand, a board member and church pastor.

Mr. Rowand said the "core of the issue" is, "Do we have the academic freedom to tell our children there are other points of view besides Darwin's?"

STUPIDITY Galore... what can I say?
First of all, looks like this loser is very very important since he gets to review his own chapter in a book. WHAT?? WOW!!! Man, may I review my next publication myself, please, please??

Also, he himself admits that Astrology can be considered a science, since it fits under his definition of "Science". Wow, don't the warning bells go off as soon as you hear that? He admits Astrology and I.D. are in the same category... so now let's teach astrology in schools.. Linda Goodman-required reading!!

Lemme try and put succintly what he said so that the tautology is obvious..
He just said that
--- The mechanism that intelligent design is proposing is intelligent activity.
hmmmmmmm .. confusing or duhhhhh ??
Its like this example I always remember
- Define tautology. Answer: Tautology is that which is tautological.
Hehehe.. more confused??

OK, if you cannot convince, confuse..
and that seems to be working fine for these ID proponents.
What did that church pastor say at the end?

"Doesn't it sound like he knows what he's talking about?"

Sound like?? SOUND like?? SOUND like???????