The case for intelligent design

Bruce Veinotte, originator of the School Sucks Project, has done some tutoring in his post professional “teacher” career. One of his charges was taken in by tales of ancient aliens and extraterrestrials. Rather than set him straight, he encouraged the child to explore the avenues of this field, helping and guiding him not by telling he what it is proper to think, but rather in how to think.

The kid, on his own, came to realize that there was not enough bankable evidence to support any beliefs in extraterrestrials and the like.

That places that kid miles ahead at any kid who simply took comfort in a teacher advising him to avoid the subject.

The schools should not “teach” intelligent design, but should allow the kids to examine it along side other belief frameworks, and so work their own way through it without being told anything other than the proper technique for analysis of ideas. Otherwise the kids have not learned anything but to follow authority.

But schools do not allow, much less “teach” critical thinking. Kids are deeply indoctrinated and by the time they graduate, jump bare-assed into the deep end of the pool with ducky water wings. They join the military, plunge into college debt, 30-year mortgages, find unfulfilling “jobs” and breathe our advertising-soaked consumer culture without pause for reflection, school having done precious little to set them free. And when the TV says something is true, they do not question.

ShhotersVeinotte makes the case for processing abilities, that is, consider this: At Charlie Hebdo, we were shown pictures of hooded gunmen and were told who they were.

Most people, just about everyone I’ve read, take that information in, and read it back unchanged. They do not process it. They are brainwashed. They do not have the desire, much less the ability, to question the authority of the news media.

Not only are they brainwashed, they are boring.

4 thoughts on “The case for intelligent design

    1. Your bottom link does not lead anywhere. Can you fix it?

      I’ve learned not to trouble myself with videos and images. People see what they are told they see and do not question it. The very idea, for instance, that a jet aircraft is consumed by a steel and concrete building without resistance and leaving no debris is utter absurdity, physically impossible. But people see it on TV and assume it happened that way. One moron even went so far as to tell me that Newton’s Third Law had a variable, “v,” or velocity. which explained the video. “Equal and opposite” force is all the law says. More speed = more resistance = debris scattered all over Ground Zero. There was none.

      Of course, it does not hurt that most movies these days are about superheroes who defy the laws of physics.


        1. I might just take a pass. Banking conspiracies are too reductionist for my blood, I’ve been re-reading a Jim Garrison book written in 1988 in which he was trying to understand the behavior of the news media around the JFK murder, how they formed a protective circle around the murderers. He became the object of scorn even as his work was purely evidence-based, by definition. NBC a went out of its way to smear him.

          The best he could do was that NBC was owned by defense contractor RCA, at that time, and that JFK had threatened their defense contracts. But it is more than that, of course. It is simply a delusional existence for most people, imagining they live in an honest world with elections and good government. It has never been that way. The vast majority of the population is unable to deal with the world as it really works, with power, and not law, the central element in all dealings. Most crmes are unpunished, bribery and coercion, murder and extortion form the backbone of most societies, and real power is always silent.

          But it is important, for sake of public harmony, that people believe in goo-goo stuff, elections, courts, law enforcement, all of which are only mildly effective. (Shoplifting or a drug bust will land you in jail if you have no power.) Garrison merely crossed the line, expecting the courts to seek truth and enforce the law, which is not their function. He died in 1992 still not having understood it, and thinking that he made a huge mistake in crossing the line from make beleive into the real world of American life..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s