Evolutionite censhorship at Baylor

C-glass said This is incorrect. Darwin dropped his faith early in his career as a naturalist. Before he left the Beagle his inquiries into "how stupid was god to not have gotten design elements right the first time" Darwin had mnany "aha" moments in his departure from religion and spirituality. His wife Emma was convinced that he, because of his agnosticism would be rewarded with not spending eternity with her.

You have to go back an reread Darwins letters and notes. (many of which are on the web). Just because he had ministerial training didnt ,mean anything. Lets just say that it didnt "take"

And isn't that just typical of scientific control freakery. To think another design was "stupid" simply because he didn't approve of it and with a knowledge of how it really worked asymptoting with zero.

And it is well known that agnosticism is stupid on the grounds that one has nothing to lose by betting on their being a God and and afterlife once one allows that there might be when infinite futures are at stake. The atheist is not in that position.

And one might think that his worries over whether he and Emma were capable of producing healthy babies might have led a scientist to take it easy on the doughnut squirting.

And even a casual study of firearms design easily supplies the scientific thinking behind his idea and after that it is merely a question of finding the appropriate evidence and fannying it out at great length.

I would have bought a stud farm and started breeding Derby winners. And gone broke of course.

You should never mix your Zoloft and beer spendi. It all comes out in short incomprehensible bursts . AND youre certainly no Baudelaire.

Meanwhile all those virtuous IDers and Creationists in the Oral Roberts University Board of Regents are under Senate Investigation for diversion of funds to pay for personal extravagances. (Meanwhile, they cant get their own graduates accepted into decent med schools)

fm wrote-



That's just good business isn't it. Maybe they knew their Veblen.

Think of the employment and subsiduary spin-offs from "personal extravagances".

That's how it works isn't it?

I look forward to the Senates conclusions.

they wont conclude, they will present indictments. So how long have you been a supporter of felons (well , for now , alleged felons). or is embezzlement not a felony in UK?

When public funds are purloined to pore over 600 million year old fossils kept locked up in air conditioned display units to be used as mirrors for psuedo-scientists to appreciate themselves in and to try to prove that 94% of Americans are ID-iots and to help facilitate a smash-and-grab on Dover residents it is unbecoming to start acting like a cross between St Theresa and Little Lord Fauntleroy.

You cannot name one person who has not committed a felony whilst at work. In fact I think that if felonies were reduced to zero the whole system would collapse.

Methinks you protest too much which the psychologists reckon is a sign of a guilty conscience.

Certainly "alleged embezzlement" is not a felony otherwise we would all be in jail I fear.

There are not many sights funnier that that of a puritannical, pedantic presbyterian riding on his high horse and lording his moral superiority over us weak mortals. Capt. Mainwearing rides again.

shpendi

I love it when you try to make sense.

Some viewers might think I did make sense but one can hardly expect the psuedo-scientists who are engaged in the activity mentioned to think so. They have their self-image to think about.

who are these pseudo-scientists of whome you speak?

Read Spengler's The Meaning of Numbers and get back to me.

I can't be expected to start that stuff from the bottom.

read Raup's Extinction , Bad luck, or bad genes and get back to me. Id like to start fom the same plane of reality.


Pompous a**hole.

Thank you.

Seriously, Spendi, you can't expect everyone to just drop everything they're doing and read the books you tell them to. It'd be great if we could, but on the other hand, wouldn't it be great as well if your books conferred enough knowledge on you that you could spread it to us by convincing us in argument that your correct, instead of telling us to do that work for you.

First Vengo- Google "Schopenhauer: On Women". Read it.

Then imagine explaining it to Mrs Clinton--say. That's the sort of thing I would be up against.

You know what 100 sheep consists of. As a magnitude. But what is 100 degrees Centigrade or $100.

What is number? Could you see the latter two examples as mystical concepts. Derivatives of a special culture. The $ is quoted to five decimal places against the £. And what's a £? And the rate changes every second.
What's a second anyway.

Classical number was related only to the here and now. Ours is related to the infinite and the infinitessimal and to change.

Number is grounded in culture as words are. The Indians invented zero and hence negative numbers.

I don't understand it myself but at least I know that.

What was the North American aboriginal idea of number.

What's North America for that matter?

I was wondering in the bath just now whether any anti-IDers had any objection to Schoppy's famous essay.

It is too early to say whether those ceiling busting executive types one sees pertrayed in the movies, which is about as near as I care for them to get, are a bit of a mutation which will become extinct before long. In evolutionary time I mean.

In fact I can't see anything they could take exception to at all. So we might presume that if they don't offer any objections they are broadly in agreement with it as a pretty accurate description of womanhood as a long running performance.

Sometimes the observer's presence in a scientific viewpoint can annihilate the object under study.

you take baths?

I can hardly bear the thought of not having a half-hour soak everynight in soap free piping hot water. It is conducive to meditation as well as sensually satisfying. I'm inclined to think that the distractions of showering are attractive to those who don't care to meditate.

Any thoughts fm on the previous post or are we to take it that you agree with Schopenhauer and possibly with me that the character portrayed by Mary Tyler Moore in the Dick van Dyke show, and those ladies in W.C. Fields and Laurel and Hardy movies are an evolutionary aberration and destined to be selected out due to internal incoherence from an evolutionary standpoint when unhindered by religious sensibilities.

Have you any view on what the Dean of Engineering at Baylor might say about these matters?

I read "die Welt...Vortsellung" and the only thing Ive possibly gotten to adjust to the symmetry of this thread is that you wish to be associated with his thinking. SHAZAAAM, there you go. all taken care of
"Im an applicationist"

I presume your German expression, from what I've been told, means the same as what I mean by the "light patterns".

It is not at all that I wish to be associated with Schopenhauer's thinking. I have no choice. Since when have facts anything to do with those who placed one particular version of them before the public. He is noted for his style of expression. What he expressed has been known a very long time. In fact it is the subject of art. It is even the subject of intellectual conversations in pubs and the ground base of all real humour.

One supposes that the Diana and Actaeon myth has been influential in presenting the opposite view and the one I lean towards. But I think Schopenauer was a sort of anti-IDer and not a silly-billy soft romantic like me and I was interested, in the service of sussing out half-baked anti-IDers, thus proving they are poseurs seeking easy attention, in what they think of it.

Art can only be defined by subject. Otherwise everything is art. Including children's drawings and drum bashings.

I'm surprised that you could draw such a conclusion. You who are only seeing the light patterns. Schopenhauer is one of them of course. Once you start selecting which light patterns to see you have become subjective. Not that that should surprise me I know.

I asked what anti-IDers thought of it. No takers so far. That doesn't count. It's too wishy-washy.

Apply yourself to that fm or you might look like a half-baked applicationist as well.

No, its a shorthand of Shopenhauers book that I had to read for some course, years ago. Never saw any reason to further delve because I find that most philosophers are wanna-be scientists who failed math