More from Dover
Alexander
already been posted elsewhere:
Pokemoto
>From: "Alexander" alexande...@virgin.net
>Date: 12/4/04 5:57 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <jPhsd.53$zX5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
>
>Interesting take from the teachers side of things ... apologies if this has
>already been posted elsewhere:
>
>http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/51229/
This shouldn't surprise anyone. The guys that want to teach ID are up against
their own gulibility and dishonesty. On the one hand they were "fooled" into
supporting ID (This is probably due mainly to their religious bias), and on the
other, when they finally have to come up with something to teach about it, they
come up with zero. The reason for this is that absolutely no organization or
even a reputable "expert" supporting ID has come up with a lesson plan that
includes ID. The rubes do not have the mental ability or the knowledge that
would allow them to create such a lesson plan, and now they find that no one is
willing to help them. Not even the guys that perpetrated the ID scam on them.
The reason for this is that ID is bunk. The ID proponents with enough on the
ball know that it is bunk, so no one is willing to put it on the line and try
and present something to teach about it. When the board members found this
out, the dishonesty comes into play and the rubes can't admit their mistake and
they try and lie their way through what was just a stupid mistake.
They fell for a scam. When they found out that it was a scam they didn't back
out and go with the next scam like the guys in Ohio. This seems to be due,
mainly, to one guy that has some type of influence over enough board members
that he can get them to back him even when guys like the ID "experts" at the
Discovery Institute are telling him to back off, and that they do not support
teaching anything about ID.
It sort of looks like the unreasonable behavior that we see quite often with
creationists on talk.origins. For some reason a lot of them can't admit even
the stupidest mistakes, and will go into hundred post battles to try and defend
their stupidity, when all they had to do was admit that they were wrong. For
some reason they do not have the ablility to honestly evaluate such situations.
I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a lesson plan.
Both sides of this issue would like to see what they want taught, how it will
be presented, and how the students will be expected to be evaluated on the
information. It sounds simple, and every other topic has to have some type of
lesson plan, so let us see the ID lesson plan.
The simple reason that you do not see a lesson plan is that ID is no better off
than the "scientific creationism" that it replaced. At this time there isn't
anything to teach about it, that the proponents would bother to put up for
evaluation. When the Arkansas bill passed in the early 80's the creationist
proponents found that they didn't have anything to teach and that the junk that
was put in the bill outlining the Biblical creation mythology could not be
supported by modern science. You know what a failure "scientific creationism"
is because the current ID proponents try very hard to claim that they aren't
that kind of creationist. This is pretty hard to believe because you see that
about the only thing that the ID proponents at the Discovery Institute are
pushing right now is classic scientific creationist tactics by people like
Wells. Even Dembski is writing creationist denial junk like his "Human
Origins" essay that he put up for evaluation on the web.
If the rubes in Dover or Wisconsin stand by their guns, ID will finally go to
court and be found to be no better than the "scientific creationism" that it
replaced. That is why you have the guys at the Discovery Institute trying to
disown the guy in Dover.
The sad fact is that people should really be wondering if the current
creationist "teach the controversy" scam that replaced the ID scam is worth
teaching. When are we going to see an honest evaluation of that scam? You
don't see the Discovery Institute putting up their own lesson plan on it. They
only rely on the ignorant rubes that have been fooled by their propaganda to
try and impliment the scam. No one argues that the rubes got it wrong in Ohio
and looked pretty dishonest in their original implimentation, so why doesn't
the Discovery Institute help them out? They are the major advocates of the
scam. Why would anyone that trusted the Discovery Institute on the ID scam,
trust them on the current scam? Don't the rubes ever ask themselves why the
guys at the Discovery Institute will not put their own reps on the line to put
forward exactly what the scam is?
Ron Okimoto
Seppo Pietikainen
No surprise there, either.
It is like I mentionied somewhere else (?), similar situation as to a dog
chasing cars. One day it'll catch one...
Seppo P.
Cheezits
[good stuff about ID deleted]
> I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
> lesson plan.
What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include a
sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is not a
theory or a fact."
Sue
--
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
Pokemoto
>From: Cheezits cheez...@hotmail.com
>Date: 12/4/04 10:23 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns95B5769F88F1Dch...@130.81.64.196>
Until they put up a lesson plan we won't know what they will be in it. An
honest lesson plan would obviously have to have, at least, some explanation for
the lack of support for the teaching of ID at this time. It should give them a
clue as to how difficult it will be to produce an honest lesson plan when the
guys that perpetrated the ID scam on them are telling them to drop it.
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
>Ron Okimoto
I suspect that the lesson plan will consist of pointing out
what they consider the "weak spots" in evolutionary theory.
It will NOT contain any direct evidence for ID, but then,
they don't care as long as they can trash evolution.
----- Paul J. Gans
Pokemoto
>Date: 12/4/04 12:23 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <cot06p$78f$9...@reader1.panix.com>
The point is that this is not the lesson plan that the Dover board claims to
want to teach. They claim that there is something about ID that a teacher can
bring up in science class. The Discovery Institute doesn't support this
because they know that they have been scamming the public for years about ID.
The Discovery Institute's latest scam is "teach the controversy." Their
supporters are scratching their heads over this scam because they can't figure
out what they can do with it if there isn't any ID or creationism in the
"controversies." The Ohio board tried to sneak in creationism via web links,
but they didn't directly succeed because they were forced to remove the
offending links. They still want to teach the junk because they advise
teachers to use web resources for the material, but they set no guidelines on
what web resources are acceptable. It is just part of the total lack of
honesty that these guys have on this topic.
This Bowen (I may be misremembering the name) guy in Dover has nailed the
Discovery Institute to the wall because he is forcing the issue of ID that they
wanted to try and cover up. If it continues everyone will know what a scam ID
was and is. The ID proponents only hope is that Dover and Wisconsin change
their minds and back off. Right now the Discovery Institute doesn't know how
to make them do this without looking like total idiots. They admit that Bowen
consulted with the Discovery Institute about ID, but they claim that they do
not support teaching ID at this time. They don't say what they told Bowen.
Why couldn't they demonstrate to Bowen that he was making a mistake?
Their supporters know the ID propaganda that they have been pumping out for
years. I've been lurking at talk.origins since around 1993 and posting for
years, so you and I have seen most of the antics. Now it is the rubes fault
for believing the ID scam artists. The Discovery Institute isn't supporting
Dover and they don't claim any responsibility for the actions of the board.
This is a part of the Wedge that the wedgies at the DI wanted to happen in
their 5 year plan, but it turns out that there isn't anything about ID that
they are willing to support at this time. So even though they worked to see
the day that ID would be forced into the school system, it turns around to bite
them because there is the little problem that ID is bogus.
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
>Ron Okimoto
Sure. I agree with all that (and you've put it very well).
But I still think that the Doverian in the street is going
to end up wanting the schools to do what I said above.
In my opion, the creationist man in the street in Dover
wants to do evolution in. At least he wants the arguments
against evolution that he's been hearing about in Church
for years brought into the classroom.
ID doesn't fool him. He *knows* we are talking about God
here. The shenanigans of the Discovery Institute don't
worry him at all, if he's even *heard* of the Discovery
Institute.
It seems clear that the bulk of the Churches in Dover are
not opposed to this move in Dover. They too don't care about
the Discovery Institute. Again, what they care about is
that the students hear that evolution is but a theory and
that the theory has many flaws. Since they operate from
a belief in creationism, they fully understand that ID means
God did it.
Now I'd agree that folks on the evolution side have to hold
the Dover School Board's feet to the fire on this and not
let them get away with simply slamming evolution.
But Dover is in a spot now. What are the rest of the creationists
going to do? They can't let Dover go down the tubes for lack
of a program.
This is going to be interesting yet.
---- Paul J. Gans
John Wilkins
> poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
> [good stuff about ID deleted]
> > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
> > lesson plan.
>
> What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include a
> sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is not a
> theory or a fact."
>
> Sue
I saw a copy of Behe's book in the local library. I think I'll put a
sticker in it...
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Dunk
Wilkins) wrote:
>Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
>> [good stuff about ID deleted]
>> > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
>> > lesson plan.
>>
>> What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include a
>> sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is not a
>> theory or a fact."
>>
>> Sue
>
>I saw a copy of Behe's book in the local library. I think I'll put a
>sticker in it...
You're joking, right? Please don't start that.
dunk
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:33:56 +0000 (UTC), john...@wilkins.id.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
> >> [good stuff about ID deleted]
> >> > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
> >> > lesson plan.
> >>
> >> What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include a
> >> sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is not a
> >> theory or a fact."
> >>
> >> Sue
> >
> >I saw a copy of Behe's book in the local library. I think I'll put a
> >sticker in it...
>
>
> You're joking, right? Please don't start that.
What sauce for the goose, right?
R. Dunno
What if a student gives ID a good debunking on a midterm essay,
does the student automatically flunk the midterm?
Alexander
"John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gobjcj.1ni5gblf6rj1gN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
> Dunk <pdu...@palebluedot.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:33:56 +0000 (UTC), john...@wilkins.id.au (John
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
>> >> [good stuff about ID deleted]
>> >> > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
>> >> > lesson plan.
>> >>
>> >> What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include a
>> >> sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is not
>> >> a
>> >> theory or a fact."
>> >>
>> >> Sue
>> >
>> >I saw a copy of Behe's book in the local library. I think I'll put a
>> >sticker in it...
>>
>>
>> You're joking, right? Please don't start that.
>
> What sauce for the goose, right?
>
I think that's actually an excellent idea ... just think of the fun you can
have with 'official' stickers.
Pokemoto
>Message-id: <cot8vo$a28$3...@reader1.panix.com>
>
>Pokemoto <poke...@aol.comnspamno> wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: More from Dover
>>>From: Paul J Gans ga...@panix.com
>>>Date: 12/4/04 12:23 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cot06p$78f$9...@reader1.panix.com>
>>>
>>>Pokemoto <poke...@aol.comnspamno> wrote:
>>>>>Subject: Re: More from Dover
>>>>>From: Cheezits cheez...@hotmail.com
>>>>>Date: 12/4/04 10:23 AM Central Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <Xns95B5769F88F1Dch...@130.81.64.196>
>>>>>
>>>>>poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
>>>>>[good stuff about ID deleted]
>>>>>> I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
>>>>>> lesson plan.
>>>>>
>
>Sure. I agree with all that (and you've put it very well).
>But I still think that the Doverian in the street is going
>to end up wanting the schools to do what I said above.
>
We all agree that their goal is to do in what they consider to be biological
evolution, but that isn't what the board is claiming. They are claiming that
there are legitimate alternatives. Now they will have to put up these
alternatives and demonstrate that they are legitimate.
>In my opion, the creationist man in the street in Dover
>wants to do evolution in. At least he wants the arguments
>against evolution that he's been hearing about in Church
>for years brought into the classroom.
>
>ID doesn't fool him. He *knows* we are talking about God
>here. The shenanigans of the Discovery Institute don't
>worry him at all, if he's even *heard* of the Discovery
>Institute.
>
It is possible that the rubes aren't fooled and that they understand the scam,
but that didn't seem to be the case in Ohio. The SEAO and the sympathetic
members of the state board believed that there was some scientific ID
alternative that they could teach. The SEAO was supposed to have academics as
members. If you go to their web page now, all they have up is the "teach the
controversy" scam. Before the SEAO web page had junk up about some scientific
theory of ID that was being suppressed and that they supported teaching in the
Ohio schools. It would be convienent to have these guys exposed as charlatans
that knew what they were talking about, but it looks like they were blindsided
by the ID propaganda. If they didn't believe it they wouldn't have made such
fools of themselves over it. Their major problem is that after the scam was
exposed to them they just went with the next scam. They even got the next scam
from the same people that fooled them with the ID scam. That shows a lack of
reasoning power at the very least.
>It seems clear that the bulk of the Churches in Dover are
>not opposed to this move in Dover. They too don't care about
>the Discovery Institute. Again, what they care about is
>that the students hear that evolution is but a theory and
>that the theory has many flaws. Since they operate from
>a belief in creationism, they fully understand that ID means
>God did it.
Now, they will have to put that in a lesson plan and set the guidelines. If it
doesn't get in a lesson plan what are they going to think? If all they get is
junk about no moths on tree trunks or esoteric ideas in developmental biology
with no link to their designer, what will they have to think?
>
>Now I'd agree that folks on the evolution side have to hold
>the Dover School Board's feet to the fire on this and not
>let them get away with simply slamming evolution.
The science side shouldn't have to do anything. The board members now have to
support what they claim that they can do. Bowen claims not to fear the courts
so let him put up any standards that he believes that he can get away with. He
is going to have to claim something about ID. It will be a first, and he
obviously can't expect help from the Discovery Institute.
>
>But Dover is in a spot now. What are the rest of the creationists
>going to do? They can't let Dover go down the tubes for lack
>of a program.
>
>This is going to be interesting yet.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Maybe Sean Pittman, Mike Goodrich and Pagano can send in their recomendations
to the Dover board.;-)
Frank J
> Interesting take from the teachers side of things ... apologies if this has
> already been posted elsewhere:
>
> http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/51229/
Just a question on one point:
This is not the first time I read the statement "Origins of life will
not be taught." Does anyone know what the intent is, or is this
another example of trying to exploit multiple definitions and the
public's confusion regarding them?
To me "origins of life" means abiogenesis. Evolution pertains to what
happens after abiogenesis, so evolution can ignore abiogenesis, at
least in 9th grade biology. But if an alternative to common descent is
implied, then abiogenesis needs to be addressed. Without a theory of
it, the "alternatives" have nothing. So avoiding addrssing abiogenesis
could divert attention from that inconvenient fact.
Or am I reading this the wrong way, and is this just another pathetic
attempt to ignore the 3.8 billion year history of life to accommodate
YECs under the big tent?
Bigdakine
>Date: 12/4/04 3:12 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <20041204202631...@mb-m21.aol.com>
There will be no problem in that event.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
Frank J
> poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
> [good stuff about ID deleted]
> > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
> > lesson plan.
>
> What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include a
> sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is not a
> theory or a fact."
>
> Sue
Since "Of Pandas and People" is the only ID "textbook," a good guess
is that would be it. But you bring up the $64,000 question. Would
"equal time" advocates agree to a "equal time" for a disclaimer for
OPAP too?
I can just see it: "Evolution may be "only" a theory, and by "theory"
scientists mean "well supported explanation," not "just a guess." But
ID is only an argument from incredulity, with no theory in sight....So
study hard and learn how to misrepresent evolution. Maybe you will be
the next Isaac Newton of Information Theory."
Ian H Spedding
>
> Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
> > [good stuff about ID deleted]
> > > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they
present a
> > > lesson plan.
> >
> > What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to
include a
> > sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth.
It is not a
> > theory or a fact."
> >
> > Sue
>
> I saw a copy of Behe's book in the local library. I think I'll
put a
> sticker in it...
Oh, _please_ do! :)
This could be a useful PR stunt in the US, demanding that any
creationist books include a large disclaimer citing Epperson v
Arkansas for example.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Bigdakine
>Date: 12/4/04 2:02 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <1gobjcj.1ni5gblf6rj1gN%john...@wilkins.id.au>
>
>Dunk <pdu...@palebluedot.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:33:56 +0000 (UTC), john...@wilkins.id.au (John
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
>> >> [good stuff about ID deleted]
>> >> > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
>> >> > lesson plan.
>> >>
>> >> What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include a
>> >> sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is not a
>> >> theory or a fact."
>> >>
>> >> Sue
>> >
>> >I saw a copy of Behe's book in the local library. I think I'll put a
>> >sticker in it...
>>
>>
>> You're joking, right? Please don't start that.
>
>What sauce for the goose, right?
Well, why not sneak into the local fundamentalist church..
Place a disclaimer on the Bibles which read..
"Note: The first few chapters of this book was written by Bronze age nomads.
Other parts were written by people unknown, about people known and unknown.
Some people believe this book is the literal word of God, some believe it is
the inspired word of God, some believe it simply has great spiritual value,
others believe it is great literature but poorly edited, and still others
believe it is nonsense not worth the paper it is written on."
Pull that off Wilkins, and I'll fly you to Hawaii.
Bigdakine
>Date: 12/4/04 10:39 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <couidi$4h8$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
As soon as the UH library re-opens, me, Dunford and Fritzinger have a project.
Frank J
Which is why we should not just ask for a lesson plan, which only
invites more "god-of-the-gaps" nonsense, but demand some YEC vs. OEC
debate (not in bio class!). That should at least draw some attention
to the flaws in both of the alternative "theories." While most
creationists on the street are probably YECs, with next to no
understanding of geology, isochron dating etc., the smart ones are at
least OECs, if not private accepters of common descent and evolution.
But more importantly, most are oblivious that there even is a YEC/OEC
debate.
I'm not surprised that the DI objects to the Dover strategy. They
apparently favor the Ohio "critical analysis" plan with its "don't
ask, don't tell, don't critically analyze the alternatives" approach.
But I am a bit surprised that they are public about it. Then again, DI
folk often do take calculated risks with their comments, like
Dembski's one about how ID can accommodate all the results of
"Darwinism." They count on the fact that such comments go over most
heads, but nevertheless can be useful to get them out of binds.
To use Robert Pennock's analogy, there really is a "Tower of Babel"
out there. Anti-evolution groups not only cannot agree on a common
alternative origins model, they cannot agree on a strategy to
implement their pseudoscience into education. I'm convinced that
lumping them all in the category of "creationists" without exploiting
their irreconcilable differences actually helps them, and keeps alive
the myth that there is some single promising alternative to evolution.
TomS
<38c5d0dd.04120...@posting.google.com>, Frank J stated..."
There is another sense to the phrase "origins of life": The
origins of each individual living thing.
Perhaps someone should tell them about "scientific storkism".
(See my .sig)
--
---Tom Scharle <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"If intelligent design is creation theory, it's creation theory through a P.C.
filter. It's like teaching that babies are delivered either by storks or ladies,
while swapping out the word 'stork' for 'some bird' just to make it sound
objective." <http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/morris/041130>
TomS
I like this quotation from "Pandas" (page 122, italics in the
original):
"The design proponent assumes that the similarity of
features can be accounted for on the basis of _design_
_requirements_"
The idea that there are "requirements" for design conflicts,
does it not, with the concept of an all-powerful Creator? Who
(or what) is there to impose a requirement on God?
Perhaps there should be a sticker put on the cover of "Pandas",
saying something about this "assumption".
TomS
<20041204202631...@mb-m21.aol.com>, Pokemoto stated..."
>
>>Subject: Re: More from Dover
>>From: Paul J Gans ga...@panix.com
>>Date: 12/4/04 2:53 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cot8vo$a28$3...@reader1.panix.com>
>>But Dover is in a spot now. What are the rest of the creationists
>>going to do? They can't let Dover go down the tubes for lack
>>of a program.
>>
>>This is going to be interesting yet.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
>Maybe Sean Pittman, Mike Goodrich and Pagano can send in their recomendations
>to the Dover board.;-)
>
Someone could suggest Gert Korthof's web pages.
<http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm>
Dunk
> >Subject: Re: More from Dover
> >From: john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins)
> >Date: 12/4/04 2:02 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <1gobjcj.1ni5gblf6rj1gN%john...@wilkins.id.au>
> >
> >Dunk <pdu...@palebluedot.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:33:56 +0000 (UTC), john...@wilkins.id.au (John
> >> Wilkins) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> poke...@aol.comnspamno (Pokemoto) wrote:
> >> >> [good stuff about ID deleted]
> >> >> > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present a
> >> >> > lesson plan.
> >> >>
> >> >> What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include a
> >> >> sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is not a
> >> >> theory or a fact."
> >> >>
> >> >> Sue
> >> >
> >> >I saw a copy of Behe's book in the local library. I think I'll put a
> >> >sticker in it...
> >>
> >>
> >> You're joking, right? Please don't start that.
> >
> >What sauce for the goose, right?
No.
No.
Now that I think of it, No.
If stickers are objectional, don't do it.
If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't do it.
If you don't want to start a fight where you are outnumbered 100 to 1 ...
Dunk
TomS
<jPhsd.53$zX5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Alexander stated..."
>
>Interesting take from the teachers side of things ... apologies if this has
>already been posted elsewhere:
>
>http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/51229/
>
The Sunday York Daily Record has yet another article
<http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/51503/>
"Dover science faculty uneasy"
"Department head resists ID mandate"
And, near the end of the article is this sad truth:
"Spahr said the science teachers feel like they’re in a battle that
can’t be won."
Pokemoto
>Date: 12/5/04 8:10 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <cov5o...@drn.newsguy.com>
The Raelians might be more than willing to help with the ID lesson plan.
Ron Okimoto
John Wilkins
> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote...
Folks, it was a *joke*. I don't intend to do that, and in any case
defacing books is something of a Mortal Sin for me, akin to burning
them. I was just pointing out that this is something we might seek
permission to do in a court of law or public opinion, to highlight the
inanity of the anti-evolution stickers.
Dunk is correct - if we go down that path, there is no way we could win
it.
Walter Bushell
bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
I don't think Wilkins could fly that far, particularly carrying weight.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
John Wilkins
If two African swallows grabbed me by the husk, they might be able to
carry me to Hawai'i...
Walter Bushell
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
<snip>
> Folks, it was a *joke*. I don't intend to do that, and in any case
> defacing books is something of a Mortal Sin for me, akin to burning
> them. I was just pointing out that this is something we might seek
> permission to do in a court of law or public opinion, to highlight the
> inanity of the anti-evolution stickers.
>
> Dunk is correct - if we go down that path, there is no way we could win
Yes, the sticker shock would be quite enormous.
Ian H Spedding
Two swallows don't make a Hummer.
Paul J Gans
Oh, he could do it OK. He'd just likely not live to get
out of the Church.
Do you think they'd stone him or just stomp?
:-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Nah. In the world of many fundies, the Boss doesn't do grunt
work. That's what all those angels, cherubim, seraphime, etc.
are for.
God laid out the design requirements and underlings did the work.
And God is thus NOT responsible for any errors.
In fact, it is likely that God was not kept informed of problems
that arose, the angels, cherubim, etc., not wanting to burden
the Boss.
Google on Enron and bankruptcy for earthly examples.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Win? In the US?
In my darker moments I think that we are in for 100 years or
more of "Christian Government" here in the US. It has just
begun though.
That period will see the rise of China and perhaps India as
great economic powerhouses, and, with any luck, the EU as
both an economic and military power.
The US will sink into mediocrity, falling behind in science,
medicine, industrial production, etc., etc.
But we will worship God. And He will save us.
Then comes the revolution as a new generation discovers the
rest of the world. It could get very bloody.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
It's not Wilkins that would have to fly. Stuart would have to
fly *carrying* Wilkins.
I wonder if he serves snacks?
----- Paul J. Gans
TomS
<cp1n5d$j27$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
Hmmm ... Was Satan the first whistle-blower?
Jeffrey Turner
Are you kidding? As long as there's a world of evil and
terrorism and drugs out there - not to mention lots of oil -
the US isn't going to keep to itself. We've got Crusading to
do. Yee haw!
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls
the pain of stupidity.
--Frank William Leahy
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <cp1oau$j27$9...@reader1.panix.com>
Sure, but that costs extra. Beer is $4 a bottle
Double Felix
"We made trees and shrubs. We helped make all this! But did we get a
thimbleful of credit for it? No! All we got was the sack. Just for
creating the Pink Bunkadoo. Beautiful tree, that was! Og designed it.
600 feet high, bright red, smelled terrible!"
- Randall, "Time Bandits"
R. Dunno
But hardtack and vegemite are free with the purchase of a beer.
fn...@comcast.net
TomS wrote:
> "On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 02:24:50 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <38c5d0dd.04120...@posting.google.com>, Frank J stated..."
> >
> >Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:<Xns95B5769F88F1Dch...@130.81.64.196>...
> >> [good stuff about ID deleted]
> >> > I hope that they put up some "guide lines" and that they present
a
> >> > lesson plan.
> >>
> >> What are they going to use as a textbook? It will have to include
a
> >> sticker that says "Intelligent Design is a religious myth. It is
not a
> >> theory or a fact."
> >>
> >> Sue
> >
> >is that would be it. But you bring up the $64,000 question. Would
> >"equal time" advocates agree to a "equal time" for a disclaimer for
> >OPAP too?
> >
> >I can just see it: "Evolution may be "only" a theory, and by
"theory"
> >scientists mean "well supported explanation," not "just a guess."
But
> >ID is only an argument from incredulity, with no theory in
sight....So
> >study hard and learn how to misrepresent evolution. Maybe you will
be
> >the next Isaac Newton of Information Theory."
> >
>
> I like this quotation from "Pandas" (page 122, italics in the
> original):
>
> "The design proponent assumes that the similarity of
> features can be accounted for on the basis of _design_
> _requirements_"
>
> The idea that there are "requirements" for design conflicts,
> does it not, with the concept of an all-powerful Creator? Who
> (or what) is there to impose a requirement on God?
>
> Perhaps there should be a sticker put on the cover of "Pandas",
> saying something about this "assumption".
Just more evidence that the ID argument is better suited to aliens, not
God. Add the SETI and human analogies, and the Raelian support, and it
only gets better. By whining about "sneaking in God" we are missing a
golden opportunity to turn the religious right off to that nonsense. So
what if many of them go back to YEC or OEC? At least YEC and OEC make
easily refuted testable claims, and teaching them is unconstitutional
to boot.
PS: I will withhold comment on the new Google format until I am more
familiar with it. But the old one, with all its flaws, was tolerable.