Seems like the editor of the Orlando Sentinel can't leave it alone.
The temptation for effort free pontification has obviously been too strong.
What does "widely accepted" mean in view of 90% of Americans rejecting atheism.
Quote:The essence of science is to inquire, observe and challenge concepts.
If you say that in the nerve muscles of a dissected frog the transmitter substance, acetylcholine, acts by increasing the permeability of the subsynaptic membrane to cations so that sodium ions flow inward and potassium ions flow outward so that the end plate current is the sum of the currents due to sodium and potassium ion flow you have said no more than that the traffic is passing along the freeway. And if you don't ask why you are left with having to say that the traffic is passing because the traffic is passing.
The editor has no more idea of the why of this biological process than anybody else has or ever will have. It is a mere description of what we can observe. And it might look very different in another language.
So to rule out an intelligent designer as the cause is to leave the question unanswered and pretend it has been answered by the expedient of words not so self-evidently stupid as those used in relation to the traffic but just as stupid nevertheless.
Blinding the kids with science in other words in the service of promoting atheistic materialism (the wedge) probably for a control freakery purpose or a straight cash transfer which is what the editor gets by sticking easily written drivel on the reverse side of an advert for the magical artefacts known collectively as lingerie for which he will have no explanation regarding the cause either.
If Florida is backward it might be a safer place to look for the cause in the editor of a prominent newspaper insulting his reader's intelligence and addressing them on the assumption that they are a "national joke". And if he hasn't assumed that he must be a national joke himself and if he has assumed it a manipulative cynic.
And he must have deliberately set his face against the overwhelming evidence that a fundamental characteristic of being human is to ask, demand even, and seek for the first cause and that it is that characteristic which is the energy source of scientific enquiry.
He is inviting us to divest ourselves of the essence of our humanity and be satisfied with the explanation that the traffic flows because the traffic flows. To become automata. And they are very easily managed and control freaks want nothing less. Ever.
And to run science into the buffers of self-congratulating, pompous twits who have got EHS (exploding head syndrome) who are only pretending they have answers to the real questions in order to expand their fiefdom and rule the world.
Once you admit that the only explanation we can think of for final causes of every physico/chemical event is to posit an intelligent designer or that there is no cause, and we have seen that the latter is not possible if we are to retain our humanity, ( AIDs-ers excepted of course), you might be able to get on with teaching the kids some science and an appreciation of the wonders of the design. There can be no wonders in meaninglessness.
And there are so many physico/chemical events taking place in your body reading this post that they asymptote with infinity.
What is this debate all about. I don't give a damn if the world is only a week old. Faustians go forward with what they've got.
It is a battle between two factions (circulating elites) for a bigger slice of the cake which, though that is another seemingly unalterable human characteristic, has been agreed should not use kids as a pitch to play on except, as evolution demands because more kids can be made and more parents can't, in famines and suchlike catastrophes.
Which leads to the philosophical question, has American greed reach such a level that Americans, some I mean, exhibit symptoms of famine in the midst of plenty and they assuage their guilt by overbearing displays of "love" towards kids again using them to make invidious comparisons in the realm of conspicuous consumption.
(See the GB Shaw quote earlier.)
But I will accept that a nation of automata might be the evolutionary way forward as well.
Huxley posed the question of whether the luxuries of his Brave New World were a good swap for the loss of humanity as we know it and Orwell never really engaged himself with the benefits to the controlling elite in his vision.
