fm wrote-
Quote:jim morrison saidQuote:
because of its very nature, science does not participate in such backbiting catfights.
Good one,
There's been some pretty serious "backbiting" from the scientifics on this thread mate.
Anyway,I asked what would be "dismaying" and "troublingly inconvenient".
I believe Jim was engaging in "irony" and I was merely acknowledging same. Thats all. Sometimes we choose these emoticons to show our feeling. Mine had a
"winkee winkee"
Sorry timber.
I didn't think Yanks did irony.I'll keep it in mind.
spendius
Note ,I was careful to use the word "science" and not "scientists". Science like religion is above the fray, both being noble pursuits. Base activity always follows after the injection of human passions.
JM
Did someone mention 'base passions'!? Alarum! Alarum!
I'm having some trouble with the fact that this discussion is some 229 pages deep which, just as a matter of odd coincidence, is the legislated limit in the farming town where I grew up for those big piles of straw and harvested cowshit. Those piles were godawful scary, with a skinny little elevated plankway that you'd teeter on with your richly odiferous wheelbarrow load. I'm feeling the same fears right now and so I'm leaving.
That's amazing Bernie-
You recommend Hofstadter to us all and he has two whole chapters on this very subject which are very interesting.
If you're still there keeping a beady eye on us as is the wont of a senior officer what's the problem?
spendie
I have given up my commission and sent those under my charge back home to their families. We've cut and run. Victory in that distant land seemed finally to us to be not so much out of reach as just downright silly in all aspects and we knew that the time was drawing near when our ladyfolk would be taking unacceptable liberties in the domestic realm, like getting rid of the rusting ovens and refrigerators that we men keep up on the front porch. Osama vs Better Homes and Gardens...as to choosing the real enemy, it wasn't even close.
Thou art in the same league as the fearsome inscrutable in Delphi.
Not very sophisticated, I know. But I can't resist:
A Hindu, a Jew and an evangelical Christian were travelling together when
they were overcome with fatigue. They stopped at a farmhouse and asked for
lodging, but the farmer said he only had room for two. One of them would
have to spend the night in the barn.
"I'll go," said the Hindu, and off he went. A few minutes later, there
was a
knock at the back door. There stood the Hindu, exclaiming, "There's a cow
in
there, and cows are sacred in my religion. It would be impossible for me to
sleep in the same room as a cow."
The farmer then asked which of the other two would volunteer to sleep in the
barn. "I'll go," said the Jew, and off he went. A few minutes later
there
was a knock at the back door. It was the Jew. "There's a pig in that barn.
It wouldn't be kosher for me to sleep there. I cannot do it!"
"Oh, all right," said the evangelical Christian. "I'll go,"
and off he went.
A few moments later there was a knock on the door. It was the pig and the
cow.
JLN, That's a good un. Couldn't predict the punch line. LOL
An evangelical happened across a person about to suicide by leaping from a tall cliff. In full Christian charity, the evangelical rushed to intervene.
"Wait!" he cried, grabbing hold of the despondent other. "Do you believe in God?", he asked.
"Why, yes, I do", responded the other. "But I have nothing left in life but pain and loneliness, so I go to meet my God. It is my only option; I have nothing, and am all alone."
"Do you belong to a church" asked the evangelical.
"I did once", replied the other, "But fell away. As I told you, There's nothing left for me to live for."
"What church?" asked the evangelical.
"The Reformed Evangelical Church of Whatsits", replied the other.
"Why, that's the church to which I belong!" exclaimed the evangelical. "Reform of 1871, or reform of 1934?"
"Reform of 1934" Said the other.
"Amazing!" cried the evangelical. "Me, too. Eastern Conference or Western Conference?"
"Eastern Conference", came the reply from the other, who was now warming to his would be resucuer.
"Me, too!", the evangelical enthused. "New York Synod or Indianapolis Synod?"
"Indianapolis Synod"
"Oh," said the evangelical, delivering a hearty shove to the other. "In that case, then, die, you heathen scum"
That's very good, timber.
A bright and helpful observation on church splintering that I bumped into somewhere noted that a key (or THE key) notion held by the newly splintered group is that they better represent the original church.
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html
Some interesting quotes:
Â…intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for.
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation,Â…
Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class."
Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are,"
Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced."
At last, we agree on something.
I had heard it before although the version I'm familar with involves three ladies of the night with different skills.
Now THAT version sounds more sophisticated.
Recent statement issued by NCSE (an organization which defends the teaching of evolution):
Quote:Kitzmiller v. Dover, represents the most important American creationism/evolution trial in 23 years. Its 1982 predecessor, McLean v. Arkansas, involved a law requiring "equal time" for "creation science" along with evolution. The court's decision, based on overwhelming and authoritative scientific testimony, was that because creation science was scientifically worthless and inherently religious, it was unconstitutional to teach it in the public schools. The Supreme Court concurred in 1987.
From the legal ashes of creation science arose the phoenix of intelligent design (ID), which flew into public awareness in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as school boards and legislators began flirting with it. Flirtation resulted in marriage in Dover last year when the school board passed a policy requiring biology teachers to present ID as well as putative 'gaps/problems' in evolution, described as 'a theory ... not a fact.' Eleven local parents took the school district to court.
Kitzmiller replays McLean, with ID substituting for creation science. Again, the scientific testimony was devastating, exposing ID's pretensions to scientific credibility as a sham cloaking a sectarian religious agenda, and the plaintiffs' legal team argued that the school board had a religious purpose in imposing the policy.
With the recent electoral rout of the Dover school board, the defendants are unlikely to appeal if the plaintiffs prevail. Because higher courts will thus remain mute on the constitutionality of teaching ID, additional Dovers may be anticipated, until the issue finally reaches the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, savvier antievolutionists are likely to emulate the Kansas state board of education by promoting policies impugning evolution without directly requiring creationism.
Intelligent design is not a theory at all. It hasn't stood up to the required scientific examination to be named a theory. It barely rates even the label of hypothesis. It's just desperate trash dreamed up by religious nut cases to prop up their collapsing ideology.
