That "mutation" before our eyes will be very interesting - indeed! Evolution in the making.
wande wrote-
Quote: anti-evolution is "mutating" to adapt to the legal environment.
Something has to wande.
Pro-evolution can't mutate. It's fixed and certain.
*********
I went in a "pretty nice" restaurant once in order to show a a nitwit that it was pure ego flattery and as such a spiritual coinceit.
The first picture on the wall that I saw was of a can-can dancer in white bloomers with her knees as far apart as she could get them in French impressionist style and the next one had an enlarged photo of a piece of a hiefer's hindquarters with some chips, two different coloured and sterile looking veggies, a knife and fork arranged according to the Book of Etiquette and some bold, almost fluorescent letters saying- "Two for the PRICE of One.DEEEELICIOUS".
Don't get me going about restaurants.
Scientists eat Pot Noodles on the Bangs for Bucks principle.
wandel. You feel that the other cases, Cal etc, are being centrally planned ? Ive always felt that the IDers and the Creationists were so busy beating each other up in doctrinal junk that they miss the opportunity to act in concert. Maybe theyve worked out some compromise.
aint I naive
Just a leetle teeny-weeny bit fm.
UK UPDATE
Quote:Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons
(Alexandra Smith, Education Guardian, January 23, 2007)
Teenagers will be asked to debate intelligent design (ID) in their religious education classes and read texts by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins under new government guidelines.
In a move that is likely to spark controversy, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes.
ID, which argues that the creation of the world was so complex that an intelligent - religious - force must have directed it, has become a contentious issue that has divided scientists and Christians in Britain.
Some of the world's top scientists have expressed outrage over the teaching of creationism and ID in school science classes, which they say is an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching. They argue that it should be made clear to pupils that science backs the theory of evolution.
Now the QCA wants pupils in England to debate the relationship between science and religion in their RE lessons. The teaching of ID and creationism should prove less contentious in this part of the curriculum (although the scientists who argue that ID is a science may be disconcerted), as pupils will investigate and role-play disputes between religion and science, such as Galileo, Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins.
Pupils will be expected to understand terms such as creation, God as creator of the universe, intelligent design, the Big Bang theory, the sacred story and purposeful design, as well as words that are specific to a religion, such as Bible, Rig Veda, and Qur'an.
The new guidelines for key stage 3 (11 to 14-year-olds), published yesterday, say: "This unit focuses on creation and origins of the universe and human life and the relationship between religion and science. It aims to deepen pupils' awareness of ultimate questions through argument, discussion, debate and reflection and enable them to learn from a variety of ideas of religious traditions and other world views.
"It explores Christianity, Hinduism and Islam and also considers the perspective of those who do not believe there is a god (atheists). It considers beliefs and concepts related to authority, religion and science as well as expressions of spirituality."
This make me wonder if intelligent design ever inspired anyone to convert from atheism to Christianity, Hinduism, or Islam. I doubt it.
I havent heard anything from or about Duane Gish for almost an entire year. Does anyone know whether ole Duane is still alive? I know that he spent time reformulating hisself from Creationist into an Ider. Thus hes had a lot of philo-scientific baggage to return, so maybe hes just waiting for a suitable time to have passed before he parades himself out into the"scientific" light again.
farmerman wrote:I havent heard anything from or about Duane Gish for almost an entire year. Does anyone know whether ole Duane is still alive? I know that he spent time reformulating hisself from Creationist into an Ider. Thus hes had a lot of philo-scientific baggage to return, so maybe hes just waiting for a suitable time to have passed before he parades himself out into the"scientific" light again.
I was wondering what happened to Duane. He seems to have disappeared from the stage. Perhaps he is practicing his debating techniques on A2K under the name 'Real Life'
wandeljw wrote:UK UPDATE
Quote:Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons
(Alexandra Smith, Education Guardian, January 23, 2007)
Teenagers will be asked to debate intelligent design (ID) in their religious education classes and read texts by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins under new government guidelines.
Now the QCA wants pupils in England to debate the relationship between science and religion in their RE lessons. The teaching of ID and creationism should prove less contentious in this part of the curriculum (although the scientists who argue that ID is a science may be disconcerted), as pupils will investigate and role-play disputes between religion and science, such as Galileo, Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins.
This sounds like a fun class to me. I think it's a good idea.
It's interesting that they're worried about offending ID proponents by placing ID in Religious Education class. ID is clearly not science, so I don't know where else they could possibly think of putting it.
rosborne979 wrote:It's interesting that they're worried about offending ID proponents by placing ID in Religious Education class. ID is clearly not science, so I don't know where else they could possibly think of putting it.
rosborne,
My understanding is that this is only because education ministers made some sort of compromise with persons representing "Truth in Science" (an ID group). The ministers in charge of education prohibited the use of ID material in UK science classes. Placing ID in religion education seems to be an attempt to placate UK's ID lobbyists.
rosborne979 wrote: farmerman wrote:I havent heard anything from or about Duane Gish for almost an entire year. Does anyone know whether ole Duane is still alive? I know that he spent time reformulating hisself from Creationist into an Ider. Thus hes had a lot of philo-scientific baggage to return, so maybe hes just waiting for a suitable time to have passed before he parades himself out into the"scientific" light again.
I was wondering what happened to Duane. He seems to have disappeared from the stage. Perhaps he is practicing his debating techniques on A2K under the name 'Real Life'
Ol' Duane ain't much changed his spots, he's just making a "play it safe" practice of parading 'em in front of fans of that sorta thing ...
HERE, FOR INSTANCE - not much likelihood of encountering substantive debate in such venues.
Ha, I was afraid that Doowayne had slipped this mortal coil.
Wandel, I guess theres nothing about teaching ID in religion classes with which I can disagree, but Ill bet it really pisses of the Discovery Institute types.
One of the main philosophical problems in discussions about religious belief is that the words used such as "personal", "creator", "free", "good" and the like are words which we learn the meanings of in application to mundane earthly matters like things and states.
Even words like "intelligence", "design" and "omnipotence" are derived from the ordinary world.
The question is how can such ordinary words be used at all to gain understanding of unfathomable mysteries of which we can never know the slightest thing. When we describe, or try to describe, the "He/She/It" of a deity we necessarily use ordinary words in their ordinary meanings and only the sense we have of them.
There are even problems with the words "cause", "origins" and "destiny".
Is it possible to use these words in their ordinary meanings to apply to the mundane and the transcendent. To do so is tantamount to a claim to understand God or to even think that we might.
Followers of Wittgenstein claim to find utility in playing the language-game which is only to be understood on its own terms and thus tautological. Which means, and I speculate here, that the discourse we are engaged in is only comprehensible in terms of the language rules we have laid down for that discourse and it has no meaning outside of that discourse and absolutely so regarding any Deity and His works. Which means that "social consequences" are the only grown-up game in town and the rest is like swings and roundabouts. The defence at Dover dived.
Religious experience is a non-inferential mode of knowing and understanding and does not ground the knowledge of God in argumentation using words which derive their meanings from mundane things and states.
To criticise, or to defend, the religious experience using our own language is anthropomorphic, possibly racist, and patently absurd. Objectively I mean when the social consequences of the discourse in the mundane is ignored.
The point of prayer, for example, is not necessarily to ask a favour of God. It may be so in many naive minds but these are leadership matters.
It is simply a method, like other types of chanting, for the people praying to align their attitudes with a certain moral stance which the prayer is designed to foster and inculcate. When the President says "God Bless America" it is a device to align people who catechize it with national unity.
If a person believes in God, as I gather 80% of Americans do which helps explain the President's collective public prayer for America to be blessed, then there is no reason for them to seek to justify their belief and it is foolish to expect them to do so or even try to.
They believe it in the same way that most people believe the world didn't begin five minutes ago fully formed as you find it with all the memories and fossils in their place. That is a belief which one presumes most anti-IDers share and they ought to recognise that people who believe in God believe like that.
To assume that they hold this belief because they are fearful or in despair or are idiots is pure telology on the part of those who self-flatteringly indulge their own complaisance by making such superficial, egotistical and philosophically nonsensical assumptions which might just as easily be asserted that they derive from fear, despair and idiocy.
Many people simply cannot accept that blind environmental forces with no meaning or purpose produced such things as Shakespeare or Mozart or any one of a multitude of artistic creations which humans have produced.
The sublime is simply the sublime. Art is an attempt to express it and to evoke it. The materialist must say that the sublime is an illusion or an affectation or admit it belongs to another realm, given only to man, in which mere words are useless. It isn't easy to see how atheists can be artists at all or how atheists could have produced Western society or how they could differentiate the footprints of a duck in mud from the daubs Rembrandt made on a canvas.
The only things an atheist believes are logical things like 2+2=4, (which not everyone is happy about), truths about their own mental states, (which not everyone is happy about), truths perceived by the senses, (which not everyone is happy about), and truths recalled in rememberance ( which very few are happy about - see Proust) .
Anti-IDers need to provide an explanation of the widespread occurence of religious belief and experience in mankind which has a consistent core of interpretation regarding the irreducible mystery of the Divine Nature whatever outward form those interpretations take. The form is not the substance. If a corrupted class makes exploititive use of these considerations that is not proof of the invalidity of the religious experience.
Such experience is endemic in all known cultures which have enjoyed success and our success, if it is success, has derived from the management of the form of the interpretations. The substance of it is a given. Other cultures which arose and flourished may have foundered on a less useful interpretation of the outward forms. And we continue to flourish. For now.
farmerman wrote:Wandel, I guess theres nothing about teaching ID in religion classes with which I can disagree, but Ill bet it really pisses of the Discovery Institute types.
I bet it does, although the DI should take whatever exposure to ID they can get, because serveral religious spokesmen have called ID not only bad science, but bad religion as well. Which means it's not welcome as science or religion.
If science won't have ID, and religion won't have ID, then I'm not sure where else it can go. It's kind of like a Raelien; it's not really science and it's not really religion either.
I guess its a mythology?
Oh Canada!
Stockwell Day our "Minister of Public Safety" attended the University of Victoria and Vanguard College, (then known as Northwest Bible College) but did not graduate from either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day
Stockwell Day was a Christian educator and evangelical lay pastor. He maintains fundamentalist Christian beliefs (he is a devout Pentecostal), and a "hidden agenda" per homosexuality and abortion. Day believes in Young Earth creationism.
Stockwell Day's present powers:
In the Cabinet of Canada, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for overseeing the federal government's domestic security department, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. The position was nominally created in 2003 and incorporated the responsibilities associated with the Solicitor General including responsibility for the federal Canadian prison system (Correctional Service of Canada), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Firearms Centre, the National Parole Board, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, although the incumbent was formally sworn in as Solicitor General of Canada. The position also assumed responsibility for the Canada Border Services Agency which was formerly known as Canada Customs and was administered by the Minister of National Revenue prior to 2003. In 2005 the creation of the position was formalized and that of Solicitor General abolished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Public_Safety_and_Emergency_Preparedness_%28Canada%29
rosborne saidQuote:I bet it does, although the DI should take whatever exposure to ID they can get,
. So, its like that old saying,
"youse kin call me anythin, just dont call me late ta supper"
From the "Some folks just dunno when to quit" department:
Quote:Antievolution bill in Mississippi
Mississippi's
House Bill 625, introduced by Representative Mike Lott (R-District 104) on January 9, 2007, and referred to the House Committee on Education, would provide, if enacted, "The school board of a school district may allow the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the schools within the district. However, if the theory of evolution is required to be taught as part of the school district's science curriculum, in order to provide students with a comprehensive education in science, the school board also must include the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the science curriculum." A similar provision was part of 2005's
House Bill 953, of which Lott was the chief sponsor; HB 953
died in committee on January 31, 2006.
January 24, 2007
Mississippi's Mike Lott seems to think a half dozen consecutive Mississippi legislative defeats of similar bills and a solid, nation-wide body of case law reversing every previous attempt to enact similar legislation don't mean anything. What is it they say of continuing a consistently failed course of action in expectation of improved result through repetition? And these folks get upset when they're termed "ID-iots"
I see similarities between Bush's candor and arrogance of not listening to the American People (75%) or the Iraqi People (80%) about his plan for a surge in Iraq. The voice of the people matters not when they have but one goal in mind.
ros wrote-
Quote:I bet it does, although the DI should take whatever exposure to ID they can get, because serveral religious spokesmen have called ID not only bad science, but bad religion as well. Which means it's not welcome as science or religion.
Not at all ros. It means whatever the "several religious spokesmen" meant and that's all. I could find "several religious spokesmen" for any proposition you have ever heard of.
I refer you to my previous post although with not too much hope. I have the impression that you refuse to listen to anything you don't agree with unless it is something elementary and easy to shoot at.
Timber, That Mississippi Bill is very similar to the Epperson v Arkansas case.
What did Will Durant say about the lessons of history>
