Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I don't think "moral principles fall junior to economic efficiencies". I think they can be expressed in terms of economic efficiencies.

george

You are never going to make it into my good books if you continue to allow your brain to slop around like this.

You are messing about with language and perhaps not even noticing yourself that you do this. You've slipped over from the biological senses of 'exceptional' and 'dominance' above and pushed them into your theological senses of the two terms.

So, let's just check some fundamentals here. Do you hold that humans have souls but that frogs do not? Do you hold that humans dominate other species because god set it up that way? Is our uniqueness a function of our souls?

Outside of such a theology, it makes no sense to say that humans 'dominate the earth'. We don't in numbers, nor in geographical span, nor in length of time present, nor (with certainty) in duration.

This I really gotta hear. Please illuminate.

Archimedes lived in Syracuse . . . one would be reasonable to speculate that he might have run around Syracuse nekkid, but not Athens . . .

A possibility that comes to mind is that you pitch me a question of ethics, and I try to answer it in terms of economic efficiency.

George-

I'd like to know what it is or rather what you believe it to be.I have led a somewhat blameless life and it would be a great comfort to think I would be rewarded.

Would you send a rescue team you were in charge of down a disused mineshaft to rescue a little black and white Scotty dog a video of which had been aired on the main news wagging it's tail and cocking its ears in happier days.

Doesn't mcG live near Syracuse? Is he nekkid in all this snow.

If Mills wrote that book to answer blatham's questions, blatham looks dang good for his age.

Only if Fox pays us really well, and only if they agree to at least ten close-ups of me in my Paul Krugman T-shirt while they're filming me rescuing. But where's the ethics question here?

Judges ask tough questions in evolution sticker case
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A federal appeals panel Thursday questioned the accuracy of a judge's ruling that a disclaimer in school textbooks describing evolution as "a theory, not a fact" represents an endorsement of religion.
"I don't think you all can contest any of the sentences" on the disclaimer sticker, Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told an attorney arguing for parents who sued.
"It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that," Carnes said.
The lower court in January ordered a suburban Atlanta school district to remove the stickers. The judge, Clarence Cooper, wrote the disclaimer "conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders."
Cobb County schools attorney Linwood Gunn argued Thursday that Cooper misconstrued the school board's intention, which he said was to allay community concerns while teaching good science.
"There's nothing religious in the case except constituents' beliefs or presumed beliefs," Gunn said.
Jeffrey Bramlett, arguing for the American Civil Liberties Union and parents, cited the book's author, Kenneth Miller, who testified it would be misleading to say evolution is not a fact.
That sticker "was like a cigarette warning to kids, singling out this one thing from everything in the entire book," ACLU Georgia legal director Gerry Weber said outside court.
Carnes, considered one of the court's most conservative members, was joined on the panel by Judge Frank Hull, a Clinton appointee, and Judge William Pryor, a controversial appointment last year by President Bush.
The panel did not indicate when it would rule.