wande quoted-
Quote:and steer away from hot-button issues.
Experience has taught me that such advice ought not to be underestimated.
wande quoted-
Quote: attended by about 125 people
About how many is that scientifically?
Well, I hope you didn't mean mathematically.
wande quoted-
Quote:The purpose of the meeting, they said, was to get people energized and interested in public education and other issues, such as the plight of low-income Kansans.
What????Bishops interested in the plight of low-income Kansans.
Are you taking the piss wande?
wande quoted-
Quote:"We want to make sure that all children and youth have access to good programs of education," said the Rev. Gerald Mansholt, bishop of the Central States Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Has he explained that we should all wait at red traffic lights yet and not put our hands in a fire.
wande quoted-
Quote:She said the conference was "exciting."
I'll bet it was.
I read in Mr Clinton's book about a bloke who said that he wouldn't eat dinner with anybody who had got through Senate confirmation sessions.
After reading your latest quote I can quite understand what he meant.
wande quoted-
Quote:John Lillard Burch, a bioscience investor
What's one of them wande?
I can't believe this. Does that sort of stuff past muster. I thought our local rags were bad but this is too far fetched for a fiction writer.
It is shredding the English language which is your only known means of communicating with each other.
Question: how does primordial dwarfism fit into the implications of intelligent design theory?
Chum wrote-
Quote:Question: how does primordial dwarfism fit into the implications of intelligent design theory?
Well Chum- I assume pd is or was a sensory reality and implications of theories are abstract concepts so I'm not sure "fit" is appropriate.
How does "ugliness" or "beauty" fit into the implications of modern,guilt-ridden,watered-down serial-monogamy theory is a similar question.
What is primordial dwarfism anyway.Is it physical or mental?
Which version of ID are you referring to although I can guess it is,in this case,to one of the versions which is simple,easily refutable by mundane,superficial analysis and thus providing opportunities for displays of righteous indignation and playground witticisms in those intellectual settings which most lend themselves to their appreciation.
Chum, you must recall that spendi is the proud user of a "random phrase generator"
You might also bear in mind Chum that fm is one of those fortunate individuals, who seem to be endemic in North America, who have come to believe,presumably due to choosing the amenable and inferior company often found in small ponds,that their fatuous pronouncements have scientific validity on the conclusive evidence that they have been formed in their own brains and have gushed forth from their big gobs or their fingertips and that because such evidence is convincing to themselves it will be convincing to everyone else and not be seen for what it actually is which is a form of iconoclastic ID in which the superempirical deity is the self.
I would imagine that within the realms of "primordial dwarfism" it was just as common as it seems to be now and thus provides a partial answer to your earlier question.
Another new anti-evolution tactic is the "Academic Bill of Rights". I have seen this tactic used in state legislation, but it is also used for individual school policy. Ray Rice, a professor at the University of Maine, describes a proposal that has been introduced at his school:
Quote:The College Republicans has been busy putting up signs touting the "Academic Bill of Rights," an innocuous enough sounding document until you start to read it closely (a meeting about this "Bill" was scheduled for the Owl's Nest this past Wednesday). For instance, it includes lines like "academic freedom and intellectual diversity are values indispensable to the American university." (Precisely! Although, I'd say they're indispensable period, and avoid the nationalistic overtones. Oh well, I didn't write it.) It also says that "free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise itself." Again, innocuous enough on face value. But the meat?-the rather un-subtle right-wing ideology?-of this document lies in its final line, which most readers won't get to, probably (at least, that's what I believe its crafty crafters hope!): "To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry."
So, if I teach a Biology class, I must "maintain neutrality" on the Darwinism non-debate (I call it a non-debate because of the recent state Supreme Court decisions in Pennsylvania and other places that, like it or not for "Intelligent Design" advocates, have closed off their hostile take-over of the Biology curriculum)? Does that mean I must give "equal time" to both Creationism or Darwinism?-or just not teach them? Let's examine the other side of the curricular coin: does it mean that a Religion class must give "equal time" to Darwinism? Does it mean that professors no longer determine what "knowledge" is in such courses? Do we agree never again to disagree and produce a vast wasteland of the "silent majority"? (That doesn't even know what to disagree upon?) Should I just stop teaching such "radical" and "un-American" ideas as post-colonialism, multiculturalism, and queer theory because they are "controversial" to someone, somewhere? Do I only teach from books that this organization approves of?
Chumly wrote:Question: how does primordial dwarfism fit into the implications of intelligent design theory?
How does it fit into natural selection, for that matter?
Your question is not very different from that of Dostoyevski's "Grand Inquisitor" to the figure of Christ in "The Brothers Karamazov". I refer you to the novel for his answer.
George-
As this is Ask an Expert and you are obviously the expert on the madman's writings would you please furnish for us the question and the answer.
spendius wrote:Well Chum- I assume pd is or was a sensory reality and implications of theories are abstract concepts so I'm not sure "fit" is appropriate.
How does "ugliness" or "beauty" fit into the implications of modern,guilt-ridden,watered-down serial-monogamy theory is a similar question.
What is primordial dwarfism anyway.Is it physical or mental?
Which version of ID are you referring to although I can guess it is,in this case,to one of the versions which is simple,easily refutable by mundane,superficial analysis and thus providing opportunities for displays of righteous indignation and playground witticisms in those intellectual settings which most lend themselves to their appreciation.
Here is
primordial dwarfism. As to the version of ID I am referring to, you can use any popular definition as long as you define it at least somewhat.
georgeob1 wrote:Chumly wrote:Question: how does primordial dwarfism fit into the implications of intelligent design theory?
How does it fit into natural selection, for that matter?
Your question is not very different from that of Dostoyevski's "Grand Inquisitor" to the figure of Christ in "The Brothers Karamazov". I refer you to the novel for his answer.
The point is that primordial dwarfism does not have to "fit into natural selection" because it's not implicit in natural selection to have a purpose, intent, reason. But, intelligent design theory overtly infers a purpose, intent, reason. See the difference?
Nonetheless primordial dwarfism does adhere to the implications of the scientific theory of natural selection because of it's demonstrable randomization of certain genetic predispositions and/or other natural random forces. See the difference?
farmerman wrote:Chum, you must recall that spendi is the proud user of a "random phrase generator"
Holy universal mortality control drivers , it's...the epigram random phrase generator!
"Instant news release to cover up a potentially embarrassing incident:
The current political recession is due to controlled political impairment .
Instant housing development namer:
Welcome to grassy , warm Meadow Point Ranch !
Once upon a time, The hideous slime slipped hastily across the nuclear power facility and cleaned the wood . Suddenly, We wandered hastily beneath the World Trade Center and destroyed the stream . Then, finally, The creature flew mercilessly across the river and above the spaceship. And they all lived happily ever after. The end.
...and remember:
Two heads killed one's chickens before they've hatched."
wande-
Mr Rice, in keeping with the usual posture of anti-IDers, seems blissfully unaware of the dynamic relationship between personal autonomy (academic freedom and intellectual diversity) and the well being of the social group and the individual.
He is obviously one, of a very large group, who has a powerful hang-up on the notion that he has been conditioned and indoctrinated just like everybody else. This allows him to pretend that there are no areas of research and discourse which are closed off to academic freedom and intellectual diversity which is plainly not the case.
There are two positions basically. The one says that society is dependent on the individual and the other that the individual is dependent on society.
Mr Rice,and anti-IDers in general,are in favour of the former.
Yet society has an existence before they were born and after they are dead.They owe everything,including their own existence and well being to their society and when this notion is not integrated into their inner concsciousness they have no capacity for having genuine feelings of awe and reverence to anything outside of themselves. In extreme language they are dissidents. For those who know that the individual is dependent,and thus subservient,to society then society has the power to inspire those feelings of reverence and awe.
As society cannot attain the desired results except through the actions of the individuals it is necessary for it to obtain the unconscious cooperation of these members. The individuals must therefore forget their purely animal urges and submit to some level of frustration and sacrifice or society would cease to exist and become a collection of egos each pursuing goals of their own and following their inclinations and instincts.
There are two methods of achieving this necessary aim,though anarchists and nihilists might not accept the necessity.
One is to have levels of conditioning and indoctrination of a higher order that we are used to backed up with the use of force exercised to whatever degree is required.North Korea is some way along this road and all forms of communism are dependent upon it.
The other way is to have an imaginary symbol of society such as God where the reverence and awe due to God symbolises the reverence and awe due to society which is too intangible a concept to work on its own.If God is likewise too intangible concrete smybols of God are used such as ritual,ceremony,icons and revelations.
It seems to me that to question the validity of these concrete symbols questions the symbol of God and thus ultimately questions the validity of society as being hierarchically superior to the individual.
These ideas can be studied in Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious Life which have been developed further,particularly in the USA,so that the various symbols become a functional contingency of a cohesive society whilst avoiding a totalitarian outcome. It is the effect of the beliefs,rites and symbols which becomes crucial and not the validity of them intrinsically as I have been pointing out all along.
One can only imagine that anti-IDers feel they will benefit from a totalitarian society or that they are simply naive egotists who don't know which way up is and like the sound of breaking glass.
Gandhi said that the worship of the cow is "the central fact of Hinduism,the one concrete belief of all Hindus". To set out to show that the cow is not a sacred animal completely misses the point which is the effect of such a belief on the unifying principle of Hindu social organisation and its rules of behaviour.
This is why anti-IDers simply refuse to go anywhere near the structural-functionalist argument and slip quietly away into their cosy fossils and rock formations etc etc etbloodycetera where they find comfort in displaying their undoubted expertise in such irrelevancies interesting though they might be like many word games.
If not for the fossil and rock formations that provides evidence of the past, what else can science depend on? You?
