From the article: --------------------------------------- By Melanie B. Smith DAILY Religion Writer
Debate over human origins dominated the intersection of science and religion for years.
Then, other news edged it out in talk about science going amok or making progress, depending on one's viewpoint. The birth of Dolly the cloned sheep and research using stem cells from aborted fetuses, for instance, grabbed attention.
The quandaries raised in these issues remain unsettled, but the old evolution debate has ebbed back, too. Some new streams of thought are adding to the deluge of arguments.
Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets. Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment head on" and stirred up issues anew. --------------------------------------
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:38:48 +0000, Jason Spaceman wrote: > From the article:
> Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs > and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting > hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip > Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets. > Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other > intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment > head on" and stirred up issues anew.
Astrology books sell pretty well too, if their density on bookstore shelves is any indication.
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Bobby D. Bryant wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:38:48 +0000, Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> From the article:
>> Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs >> and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting >> hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip >> Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets. >> Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other >> intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment >> head on" and stirred up issues anew.
> Astrology books sell pretty well too, if their density on bookstore > shelves is any indication.
There's an interesting comparison. Why don't some people try to have astrology taught in science class? It would be every bit ax relevant as creationism. Even more so, because astrology actually involves calculations and predictions, and has beau coup testable theories. Creationism involves hand waving and waffling and wishful thinking, and about the only "theory" it ever produces is "Because I said so!" or "Goddidit!".
Might be an interesting exercise to have creationism debators dogged by astrology debaters right on their tails. The astrology debators would sound so much more compelling and scientific which, given how un-seriously astrology is taken, should drive the point home quite nicely.
> Debate over human origins dominated the intersection of science and > religion for years.
> Then, other news edged it out in talk about science going amok or making > progress, depending on one's viewpoint. The birth of Dolly the cloned > sheep and research using stem cells from aborted fetuses, for instance, > grabbed attention.
> The quandaries raised in these issues remain unsettled, but the old > evolution debate has ebbed back, too. Some new streams of thought are > adding to the deluge of arguments.
> Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs > and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting > hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip > Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets. > Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other > intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment head > on" and stirred up issues anew. > --------------------------------------
Steve Harris, a Decatur pharmacist and the parent of three teens, said he was glad his children could hear more about creationism. "It's something I believe as fact, but is scoffed at in a lot of science books," he said.
My comment:
I wonder if Harris knows that the "it" that he believes as "fact" is not an "it" but many mutually contradictory "its," with misrepresenting evolution as the only thing in common.
Excerpt:
Another recent book from a different religious perspective is "Finding Darwin's God" by Brown University biologist Ken Miller. Miller grew up Roman Catholic and is an apologist for evolutionary biology.
My comment:
The "recent" FDG has been around 5 years. Miller is anything but an "apologist" for evolutionary biology. Speaking of mudslinging
Excerpt:
All sides have both been guilty of mudslinging, said Christianity Today.
My comment:
I didn't see any mudslinging in Miller's book. Christianity Today had better admit that the "evolutionist" mudslingers nevertheless have the only theory that works, because they know that any omission of that fact will cause many if not most people to conclude otherwise. It's not nice for a Christian publication to risk bearing false witness.
>> One book by law school professor Phillip >> Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets.
>Bestseller in Christian markets? That's akin to being the best ballerina in Wyoming.
Round about the time Johnson wrote it, he was on talk.origins for a while. Behaving like a sleazy courtroom lawyer, twisting responses to fit and generally ignoring correction.
Discussion subject changed to "In the News: Evolution vs. Creation: Old debate heating up againwith new ideas, arguments" by AnotherObserv...@serv3.gc.dca.giganews.com
>On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:38:48 +0000, Jason Spaceman wrote:
>>> From the article:
>>> Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs >>> and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting >>> hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip >>> Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets. >>> Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other >>> intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment >>> head on" and stirred up issues anew.
>> Astrology books sell pretty well too, if their density on bookstore >> shelves is any indication.
>There's an interesting comparison. Why don't some people try to have >astrology taught in science class? It would be every bit ax relevant as >creationism. Even more so, because astrology actually involves >calculations and predictions, and has beau coup testable theories. >Creationism involves hand waving and waffling and wishful thinking, and >about the only "theory" it ever produces is "Because I said so!" or >"Goddidit!".
>Might be an interesting exercise to have creationism debators dogged by >astrology debaters right on their tails. The astrology debators would >sound so much more compelling and scientific which, given how un-seriously >astrology is taken, should drive the point home quite nicely.
First, you'd need head count of devout tarot readers out there. -- Davidwd ~~~~~~~~~ irreligionist
> >> One book by law school professor Phillip > >> Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets.
> >Bestseller in Christian markets? That's akin to being the best ballerina in Wyoming.
> Round about the time Johnson wrote it, he was on talk.origins for a > while. Behaving like a sleazy courtroom lawyer, twisting responses to > fit and generally ignoring correction.
Take a look for y'allself... http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:philj...@uclink.berkeley.edu
<notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote: >From the article: >--------------------------------------- >By Melanie B. Smith >DAILY Religion Writer
>Debate over human origins dominated the intersection of science and >religion for years.
>Then, other news edged it out in talk about science going amok or making >progress, depending on one's viewpoint. The birth of Dolly the cloned >sheep and research using stem cells from aborted fetuses, for instance, >grabbed attention.
>The quandaries raised in these issues remain unsettled, but the old >evolution debate has ebbed back, too. Some new streams of thought are >adding to the deluge of arguments.
>Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs >and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting >hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip >Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets.
That's sort of like being the smartest guy on the short bus, isn't it?
>Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other >intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment head >on" and stirred up issues anew. >--------------------------------------
<AnotherObserverĘ@serv3.gc.dca.giganews.com> wrote: > Uncle Dollar Bill <UncleDollarB...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:38:48 +0000, Jason Spaceman wrote:
> >>> From the article:
> >>> Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs > >>> and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting > >>> hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip > >>> Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets. > >>> Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other > >>> intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment > >>> head on" and stirred up issues anew.
> >> Astrology books sell pretty well too, if their density on bookstore > >> shelves is any indication.
> >There's an interesting comparison. Why don't some people try to have > >astrology taught in science class? It would be every bit ax relevant as > >creationism. Even more so, because astrology actually involves > >calculations and predictions, and has beau coup testable theories. > >Creationism involves hand waving and waffling and wishful thinking, and > >about the only "theory" it ever produces is "Because I said so!" or > >"Goddidit!".
> >Might be an interesting exercise to have creationism debators dogged by > >astrology debaters right on their tails. The astrology debators would > >sound so much more compelling and scientific which, given how un-seriously > >astrology is taken, should drive the point home quite nicely.
> First, you'd need head count of devout tarot readers out there.
My assessment is that there are *more* readers of astrology than religious believers in the Protestant Bible. In Australia, at any rate. I think it might be higher in California. -- John S. Wilkins j...@wilkins.id.au web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
>> Uncle Dollar Bill <UncleDollarB...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:38:48 +0000, Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> >>> From the article:
>> >>> Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs >> >>> and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting >> >>> hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip >> >>> Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets. >> >>> Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other >> >>> intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment >> >>> head on" and stirred up issues anew.
>> >> Astrology books sell pretty well too, if their density on bookstore >> >> shelves is any indication.
>> >There's an interesting comparison. Why don't some people try to have >> >astrology taught in science class? It would be every bit ax relevant as >> >creationism. Even more so, because astrology actually involves >> >calculations and predictions, and has beau coup testable theories. >> >Creationism involves hand waving and waffling and wishful thinking, and >> >about the only "theory" it ever produces is "Because I said so!" or >> >"Goddidit!".
>> >Might be an interesting exercise to have creationism debators dogged by >> >astrology debaters right on their tails. The astrology debators would >> >sound so much more compelling and scientific which, given how un-seriously >> >astrology is taken, should drive the point home quite nicely.
>> First, you'd need head count of devout tarot readers out there.
>My assessment is that there are *more* readers of astrology than >religious believers in the Protestant Bible. In Australia, at any rate. >I think it might be higher in California.
Okay, count one more in North Carolina, as of yesterday, I've become increasingly interested :+) -- Davidwd ~~~~~~~~~ irreligionist
Discussion subject changed to "Chez Watt; was: (Re: In the News: Evolution vs. Creation: Old debate heating up againwith new ideas, arguments)" by Severian
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:47:48 +0000 (UTC), John Baker
<jbak...@neo.rr.com> wrote: >On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:38:48 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman ><notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>From the article: >>--------------------------------------- >>Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs >>and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting >>hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip >>Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets.
>That's sort of like being the smartest guy on the short bus, isn't it?
>> Uncle Dollar Bill <UncleDollarB...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> >Might be an interesting exercise to have creationism debators dogged by >> >astrology debaters right on their tails. The astrology debators would >> >sound so much more compelling and scientific which, given how un-seriously >> >astrology is taken, should drive the point home quite nicely.
>> First, you'd need head count of devout tarot readers out there.
>My assessment is that there are *more* readers of astrology than >religious believers in the Protestant Bible. In Australia, at any rate. >I think it might be higher in California.
I certainly read the horoscopes every week. I doubt it has anything to do with my growing up in CA.
>>> Uncle Dollar Bill <UncleDollarB...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> >Might be an interesting exercise to have creationism debators dogged by >>> >astrology debaters right on their tails. The astrology debators would >>> >sound so much more compelling and scientific which, given how >>> >un-seriously astrology is taken, should drive the point home quite >>> >nicely.
(Piggybacking). Back when the IRC started having seminars and meetings, a bunch of bibloical geocentrists started attending. The creationists were unhappy as they though the geocentrists went too far and made them look bad.
What can you say but Bwhahahahahahahahah!
Cheerful Charlie
>>> First, you'd need head count of devout tarot readers out there.
>>My assessment is that there are *more* readers of astrology than >>religious believers in the Protestant Bible. In Australia, at any rate. >>I think it might be higher in California.
> I certainly read the horoscopes every week. I doubt it has anything to > do with my growing up in CA.
-- Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies. www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/ A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to "L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds himself with fellow liars.
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:38:48 +0000, Jason Spaceman wrote:
> >> From the article:
> >> Proponents of intelligent design, the concept that highly complex organs > >> and organisms require the work of an intelligent designer, are getting > >> hearings and selling books. One book by law school professor Phillip > >> Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," was a bestseller in Christian markets. > >> Christianity Today said in its latest issue that Johnson and other > >> intelligent design supporters challenged "the Darwinian establishment > >> head on" and stirred up issues anew.
> > Astrology books sell pretty well too, if their density on bookstore > > shelves is any indication.
> There's an interesting comparison. Why don't some people try to have > astrology taught in science class? It would be every bit ax relevant as > creationism.
Every time I write to a politician or columnist who regurgitates some "equal time" defense I point this out. While some are genuinely clueless and might go on to learn something (assuming they even read my letter), I suspect, sadly, that most have been indoctrinated into the "pseudoscience code of silence," that is, never challenge, and if possible, don't even acknowledge, that other pseudosciences exist."
> Even more so, because astrology actually involves > calculations and predictions, and has beau coup testable theories. > Creationism involves hand waving and waffling and wishful thinking, and > about the only "theory" it ever produces is "Because I said so!" or > "Goddidit!".
Actually the mutually contradictory classic creationisms do make testable statements, but they have all failed the tests. The new "Goddidit" strategy (Intelligent Design), which lets the audience infer "how" (if not by evolution), is a virtual admission that all the creationist "theories" failed.
> Might be an interesting exercise to have creationism debators dogged by > astrology debaters right on their tails. The astrology debators would > sound so much more compelling and scientific which, given how un-seriously > astrology is taken, should drive the point home quite nicely.
Big problem: About 1/2 of the population swears by astrology, just as 1/2 of the population swears by some anti-evolution position, and no amount of evidence will convince most members either group. It's not the same 1/2 of course, but there's plenty of overlap. Nevertheless, I think that astrology and other pseudosciences should be juxtaposed with creationism whenever possible. The biggest fault of evolution defenders IMO is getting trapped into the creationist/IDer's false dichotomy, whereby the latter's alternative - stated or implied, is the only alternative in question.
