wande wrote-
Quote:Your crucial questions are answered in that law journal article, spendi. Click on my link and read it!
There is no sign of hide nor hare of them wande I'm afraid.
The questions are-
1- Are you in favour of muzzling science? The one Lola asked me and I answered.
2-What type of society will result if anti-ID wins the day and all religious thought disappears from society which is what one would expect to happen judging from the language of anti-Iders in relation to religious thought? (The self-same question contained in the Isaiah quote I provided the other day just to show that it wasn't one of my novel ideas- I daren't mention any of those.)
3- Do you recognise a "feeling" component (emotion) in human nature alongside a "reason" component and if so how do you propose nourishing it?
Your link went nowhere near any of those questions and it surprises me that you assert that it answers them or even one of them. Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?
The link seemed to me to be nothing but a bunch of arid pedantic legalisms designed to hide the fact that a few $million dollars was cleaned out of Dover and a good time had by all. ( Did prostitution density increase during the proceedings?)
You must know wande that the average IQ of all Americans is 100 and that the bulk of the population is between 90 and 100 with as many below 100 as above. Your link is by way of being an esoteric document of use only to those who specialise in using certain language structures to exert power over the rest of us. As the Latinists did in days of yore.
**********
Emotion is not much use without light and light is not much use without emotion.
**********
Talking of the sort of ID you have in mind, the Bishop Wiberforce version, Matthew Arnold wrote-
Quote:he freely permitted himself the use of clap-trap. . . he was signally addicted to clap-trap. . . Those who use clap-trap as the late Bishop of Winchester used it. . . only prove their valuelessness
And that was when Bishops were a power in the land.
Would it be possible for you to get out of your heads that your protagonist on here agrees with that statement and if you wish to address your arguments to those who peddle the clap-trap which the Bishop did (arks and floods etc) you might go on those threads where they post it.
And when Thomas Huxley, of all people, was elected to one of the London School Boards in 1870 he defied his secular colleagues by asking them "to make the Bible a part of everyday's study in schools".
Park Honan wrote-
Quote:Dogmatists like (Lord) Salisbury only ensured the Bible would be dropped in disgust sooner or later by
all the schools-- and hence the public would lose just that sense of religion and poetic insight which might correct its deadly (sic) literal-mindedness.
Anti-ID is profoundly elitist and the half-baked anti-IDers on here are seeking to associate themselves with it so that they can pretend and feel part of that elite with little or no effort, and their lack of effort is emblazoned in everything they write and in their expression style, and they are decidedly not a part of that elite. They are a claque.
Honan writes-
Quote:What Arnold feared was this: profound changes in the social order as they continue in future --and involve revolutions more radical than the founding of "socialistic and red republics" and more sweeping than anything dreamed yet by biologists and physicists--will separate people from the past collective wisdom of the race. Life is sterile and barren, no matter how fair our new society may look.
And the only ethical question raised in those days was about animal experimentation.
