I apologise c.i.
I read it as "Polls that do not agree with your own opinion rarely are credible." And pronounced sarcastically.
fm wrote-
Quote:The issue that is most relevant is that the majority of the people are willing to let science and religion occupy separate realms.
Only when thought about superficially, by which I mean only when thought about in the absence of Darwinian theory.
Bring that in and the subjects overlap so to speak. One might I suppose have a watered down Darwinianism but then one has undermined one's own position just as a thong undermines a stripper's position which becomes compromised by a residue of that which it purports to challenge and, indeed, draws attention to objects which the average parent would not, I think, wish attention to be drawn to. Such a minute censorship contributes to the mystique and it will be cast aside in those cases where some of the teachers of Darwinianism, out of the thousands of science teachers, are Wilso types which will produce schools, to continue the comparison, equivalent to the strip clubs in the red-light district of the Naples dock area.
You are naive fm. When the Wilso case, or cases, arise, media, with its bloodhound like scenting of the juice of the underbelly, will bay for its daily bread and Science will, by its own logic, need to defend him.
At least we will then have the subject polarised properly instead of all this abstract mush you anti-IDers allow yourselves to indulge in for attention seeking purposes or, in a few fortunate cases, for money.
The parents in the ITN report I posted are seeking for their children an "ambience" which teaches science whilst avoiding this tiny quaint corner of "knowledge" and the ministrations which teachers like Wilso would necessarily provide. Their daughters are promiscuous enough as it is these days without the science lessons not only legitimising their promiscuity but actually encouraging it and promoting its health giving properties which some claim is the case. Such claims, which have been made by many psychologists, only refer to individuals isolated from the claims of orderly society.
In writing on the basic subtext of classic dramas, A.A. Gill in the Sunday Times says of the adaptations of the work of Ms Austen and the Bronte sisters (excluding Emily I hope), that they are "about", and I quote-
Quote:selling teenage virginity for cash and crenellations
and
Quote: The most astute deconstruction of every plot nuance and character trait (in these programmes) can be found in Noel Edmonds's Deal or No Deal.
and
Quote: and wondering if you can make your hymen stretch over 11,000 acres and 20 grand a year.
In old money I mean.
And don't the ladies love these programmes. They salivate from every pore.
