Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

What's bread then, if it is not grass? My penultimate post was following on from what you said. Charles Fort said scientists have a habit of ignoring stuff that is inconvenient. If some magical formula was proven to work it would be very inconvenient. Just because you know something works doesn't mean you know why it works. Like limes and scurvy, they knew they worked but they didn't know why.

Bread isn't grass. Allowing for that will have you looping the loop inside five minutes.



It's not a habit. It's a reflex. It's involuntary. And you shouldn't say things like that on here as an anti-IDer. I've been saying it for years but nobody believes me because I'm not a celebrity.

Are you into anonamalous phenemena izzy?

Evolution of human behavior
Death of Osama bin Laden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD2VDg3uz7c&feature=channel_video_title

I'm not really in this forum. I'm in your head, some twisted hallucination, a symbol of sick degeneracy.

Sorry about that last post. I thought you asked if I was an anomalous phenomenon, so I acted accordingly. When you ask it like that you make it sound as if it's something pervy. I did subscribe to the FT for a number of years. I let it lapse recently more due to laziness than anything else.

Typical anti-IDer. Corpses, fossils, the past, raking over the old ashes. The risk free option. No nerve required.

That thread lasted 2 days. And the responses proved the point. QED.

The main problem I have with your flawed logic, is your insistance on id on the micro scale, as if God were some neurotic micro-manager like Gordon Brown. If there is purpose to this universe than the intelligent design goes into the fabric of the universe itself, and evolution must be a part of this design.

Why would a being capable of creating a universe with specific constants, specifically designed to allow life, be incapable of including evolution in that design? Why after creating the universe would that creator sit down with a blueprint and design everything from scratch, like a kid with a box of lego making toy horses and sheep for the farm. Why would such a creator not stick the designs in at the beginning, and allow evolution to do the work?

Is that how you see every thing? It either supports what your environment has given you to accept as reality [tradition] or it is anti-IDer propaganda?

I have said nothing of the sort and nor do I think anything of the sort. I have no views on God or ID except insofar as there is a sociological impact from the variations of successful rhetorical presentations of the possibilities.

The successful rhetorical presentation of anti-ID, unassailable as it is in its own terms, hence its attractions, its safe certainties, I think disastrous. I am more than willing to listen to arguments that it isn't disastrous and especially so if the success of the presentation is too fast for the population to cope with.

Kant's Categorical Imperitive enjoins us to avoid preaching anything we are unwilling to accept the sudden universal acceptance of. For example--izzy goes on TV and presents an argument which is so obviously true that everybody agrees with it and we become Godless on the instant. Or Godforsaken. That there is no bifurcation between the sacred and the profane. All is profane. The sacred is a delusion and a madness. Science has all the answers.

Unless you are up for that you haven't a leg to stand on. You would have nothing left to argue about. Or even think about.

I don't understand your question rl.

Maybe you haven't said that, but that's what a lot of the supporters of ID believe, a literalist interpretation of biblical scripture, and you are adding grist to the mill with your eccentric stance. Not as eccentric as Bruce Forsyth's but eccentric nonetheless. I'm sorry if I sound a bit distracted I'm trying to put on my vanity sneakers and they keep slipping off. Remember, we see the future through the binoculars of the people.

I have no brief for what "a lot of the supporters of ID believe". And whatever it is they do believe I don't think it is a "literalist interpretation of biblical scripture" assuming you mean that a spade has to be called a spade by "literalist" which is not what everybody assumes it to mean.

We are all "adding grist to the mill" here and the assertion that I'm eccentric just doesn't wet any whistles.

I don't know how eccentric Mr Forsythe is but I daresay he's a long way out from the practice he must have had.

I see the future as the application of scientific intelligence to the continuing progress towards affluence and freedom, heaven on earth, but knowing that no final consummation is possible because human nature is a very difficult substance to work with.

The binoculars of the people are manipulable and pictures can be positioned in such a way that the view from the platform consists of the pictures rather than what the bins are pointing at.

What are "vanity sneakers"? Is that a "spade is a spade" literalism or might we think it refers to the general anti-ID position. That it is trying to sneak in its vanity by buying a certain product and adopting its terminologies. An affectation. It asserts that no other terminologies are valid. Well--it would wouldn't it?, as Mandy Rice-Davies smirked once. Very neat.

Such an interpretation is actually necessary because of how unlikely it is that spade-like vanity sneakers will keep slipping off.

I've been looking forward to your response, and you've not disappointed. My vanity sneakers have been slipping off, I should never have bought them. What part of the country are you from? I have a sneaking suspicion you may be from one of those regions that voted Yes to AV.

Spendius What do you think about this new song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_83E3mz8dng&feature=channel_video_title

Don't be silly izzy. I never vote for a start. If I did I would never vote for AV and where I live was rock-solid NO.

Old hat, banal cliches.

I see you do not like the new stuff! How about this classical, The learned pig?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoTh8vCLObo

You should vote. Even if you only write 'bollocks' on the voting slip.

I quite liked it actually, admittedly I had to pop upstairs half way through, and I didn't really listen to any of the lyrics. I can see why Spendius wouldn't like it though. It's not a song to frolic around the maypole to.