letter to editor (was Greensburg Salem curriculum)
Jeff Stubbs
I'm finally getting off my duff on the evolution/creation debate and
sending a letter to the editor about the Greensburg Salem curriculum
changes. Since I'm only a high school graduate (well I have attempted
college, but it was the 70s, nuff said) anybody care to critique it for
major errors. I'd hate to look as foolish as the creationists in the
column. I checked it with BBEdit and Appleworks (M$ Word crashes OS X's
Classic environment), but I'm more worried about how clearly it reads.
I borrowed ideas freely without giving credit, my apologies. Feel free
to rip it apart. Letter text follows below.
Thx,
Jeff
**********
In regards to Joe Napsha's column on June 10.
As an ex-resident of Greensburg and a Hempfield graduate, I'm glad that
Hempfield school district isn't going to be held up to world ridicule.
Mr. Petrovich is an undergraduate at a bible college. That's a sound
basis for considering him an "expert" in a real world science. NOT.
Liberty University is the Ayatollah Jerry "U R to blame for 9-11"
Falwell's propaganda machine. We can "really" expect a non-biased
conclusion from one of its students. Mr. Petrovich should be more
astute, he should try to conceal his mythology as "Intelligent Design"
(ID) theory. ID theory is the latest creationist (and their Discovery
Institute allies) tactic for sneaking religion into science classes,
according to their WEDGE document. Don't you love it when a noisy
fringe group feels they know what's best for us. Why don't we just roll
back the calendar to the Dark Ages.
Evolution isn't about the origin of life, that theory is called
abiogenesis. Evolution is the observed facts and resulting theory that
explains life's diversity. Creation science, on the other hand, is
"poof-ism". It doesn't provide any testable answers. "goddidit" is a
non-explanation, you know, the answer you give to four year olds after
a full day of "why, why, why...". The ID theory, creation science's
more sophisticated cousin, is simply the god-of-the-gaps concept
wrapped up in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. The Roman Catholic church
and mainstream Protestant churches accept the theory of evolution. Oh
right, the Pope is Satan's tool and any other Christians that don't
kowtow to fundamentalist dogma aren't "true" Christians. Will Mr.
Petrovich object if a Hindu priest demands access to teach about Shiva
dancing the world into existence. How about a Hopi Indian shaman, maybe
an Islamic mullah. Evolution is as well established as the theory of
gravity or the germ theory of disease. Wait a minute, maybe I'm in
trouble here, some fundamentalists will let their children waste away
because it's "God's will" and not an infection. Puh-leeze
I have a game we all can play. I don't like the theory of gravity, I
feel personally insulted that engineers design structures only
considering physical mass. What about our souls. I propose that science
classes also teach the theory of "Intelligent Grappling". There's no
way a weak force such as gravity can possibly hold everything onto the
planet. It must be God, using our souls, to hold everything together.
Have any pet theories you would like taught in science classes?
--
aa# 1794
Brian O'Neill
news:140620021018451922%man...@lycos.com...
> Greetings,
>
> I'm finally getting off my duff on the evolution/creation debate and
> sending a letter to the editor about the Greensburg Salem curriculum
> changes. Since I'm only a high school graduate (well I have attempted
> college, but it was the 70s, nuff said) anybody care to critique it for
> major errors. I'd hate to look as foolish as the creationists in the
> column. I checked it with BBEdit and Appleworks (M$ Word crashes OS X's
> Classic environment), but I'm more worried about how clearly it reads.
> I borrowed ideas freely without giving credit, my apologies. Feel free
> to rip it apart. Letter text follows below.
Some helpfully submitted suggestions for you...
> In regards to Joe Napsha's column on June 10.
>
> As an ex-resident of Greensburg and a Hempfield graduate, I'm glad that
> Hempfield school district isn't going to be held up to world ridicule.
Very nice start. I would throw in the line, "such as in Kansas a couple of
years ago," to show that your fear of ridicule is not unfounded. One would
assume that the mere mention of something happening in Kansas a couple of
years ago in regard to the CvE issue would be obvious enough without going
into great detail.
> Mr. Petrovich is an undergraduate at a bible college. That's a sound
> basis for considering him an "expert" in a real world science. NOT.
This seems immature. If you must make a reference to Petrovich's
scholarship, it would be unwise to do it in a manner indicative of Wayne's
World.
In fact, I would try and avoid this line of defense altogether, as there are
some very intelligent people who spend time at schools affiliated with
religious organizations, plus it is a fallacy to comment on a person's
background as opposed to the merits of their arguments.
<snip some more jabs at his scholarship and Liberty U>
> Mr. Petrovich should be more
> astute, he should try to conceal his mythology as "Intelligent Design"
> (ID) theory. ID theory is the latest creationist (and their Discovery
> Institute allies) tactic for sneaking religion into science classes,
> according to their WEDGE document. Don't you love it when a noisy
> fringe group feels they know what's best for us. Why don't we just roll
> back the calendar to the Dark Ages.
I would also avoid insulting the other side. Most people are religious in
this country, and they might immediately take offense to an aggressive tone.
I would skip past this as well. When the facts are on your side, there's no
need to go in this direction, and you skip to the good stuff right about
here anyway:
> Evolution isn't about the origin of life, that theory is called
> abiogenesis. Evolution is the observed facts and resulting theory that
> explains life's diversity.
Good.
> Creation science, on the other hand, is
> "poof-ism". It doesn't provide any testable answers.
I'd also add ", you cannot make predictions from it, and it is not
falsifiable, which are all what a scientific theory needs to be able to do.
Evolutionary theory, however, fits the criteria, and continues to best
explain how life on this planet works."
In addition, you should point out that teaching creationism in public
schools is, aside from bad science, also unconstitutional.
> "goddidit" is a
> non-explanation, you know, the answer you give to four year olds after
> a full day of "why, why, why...".
I'd leave that out, as amusing as it is: Like it or not, MOST people do
think that "goddidit," however, they also have decided that He did it with
evolution.
> The ID theory, creation science's
> more sophisticated cousin, is simply the god-of-the-gaps concept
> wrapped up in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.
This I like. I would also hammer home some of the things that Eugenie Scott
has said on the subject, that ID has failed to do the necessary scientific
groundwork to warrant it being taught. First you do the science, *then* you
teach it to kids. Why the big rush to jump ahead of the class (so to
speak)? Why are they spending so much money, time and energy on PR
campaigns and hostile takeovers of school boards instead of doing the
science that, if it panned out, would get the movement the credibility it is
trying to force?
> The Roman Catholic church
> and mainstream Protestant churches accept the theory of evolution.
I would point out, simply, that most theists have no problems reconciling
their religious convictions with scientific knowledge across the board, from
the Pope on down.
> Oh
> right, the Pope is Satan's tool and any other Christians that don't
> kowtow to fundamentalist dogma aren't "true" Christians.
Bad. No need for this. Remember: You're right. Stick to the facts.
> Will Mr.
> Petrovich object if a Hindu priest demands access to teach about Shiva
> dancing the world into existence. How about a Hopi Indian shaman, maybe
> an Islamic mullah. Evolution is as well established as the theory of
> gravity or the germ theory of disease. Wait a minute, maybe I'm in
> trouble here, some fundamentalists will let their children waste away
> because it's "God's will" and not an infection. Puh-leeze
I would also steer clear of this all if they are trying to push ID in, as I
suspect. They present ID as "real" science, so merely pointing out that
it's not (while alluding that it's merely creationism dressed up for the
times, of course, but you already did that) and why is sufficient.
The above analogies work with strict creationism, however ID does not want
to teach Genesis (yet, at least, and the IDiots certainly won't admit that
it's even a long-term goal for obvious reasons), so these analogies in this
respect are misplaced strawmen.
> I have a game we all can play. I don't like the theory of gravity, I
> feel personally insulted that engineers design structures only
> considering physical mass.
You could expand this, without the game reference, and make a glib comment
that is also funny. Snipping one line and then:
> I propose that science
> classes also teach the theory of "Intelligent Grappling". There's no
> way a weak force such as gravity can possibly hold everything onto the
> planet. It must be God!
Funny. You could even say that gravitational theory is responsible for much
sadness in the world, considering how many people die from falling, or
having things fall on them, especially if the "ethical ramfications" of
evolutionary theory have been (erroneously) introduced.
--
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Two years, two months, five days, 13 hours, 29 minutes and 34 seconds.
31862 cigarettes not smoked, saving $3,982.81.
Life saved: 15 weeks, 5 days, 15 hours, 10 minutes.
See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
Liz
<140620021018451922%man...@lycos.com>, wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>I'm finally getting off my duff on the evolution/creation debate and
>sending a letter to the editor about the Greensburg Salem curriculum
>changes. Since I'm only a high school graduate (well I have attempted
>college, but it was the 70s, nuff said) anybody care to critique it for
>major errors. I'd hate to look as foolish as the creationists in the
>column. I checked it with BBEdit and Appleworks (M$ Word crashes OS X's
>Classic environment), but I'm more worried about how clearly it reads.
>I borrowed ideas freely without giving credit, my apologies. Feel free
>to rip it apart. Letter text follows below.
>
>Thx,
>
>Jeff
>
>**********
>In regards to Joe Napsha's column on June 10.
>
>As an ex-resident of Greensburg and a Hempfield graduate, I'm glad that
>Hempfield school district isn't going to be held up to world ridicule.
>
>Mr. Petrovich is an undergraduate at a bible college. That's a sound
>basis for considering him an "expert" in a real world science. NOT.
I really hate the "NOT". A preferable construction would be: Mr.
Petrovich's undergraduate education at a bible college does not qualify him
as a expert in real world science.
>Liberty University is the Ayatollah Jerry "U R to blame for 9-11"
>Falwell's propaganda machine. We can "really" expect a non-biased
>conclusion from one of its students.
That's a trifle harsh if you expect to be published in the paper. Go for
less sarcasm and appeal more to reason. Lose the quote marks and go for a
more straight forward statement about his lack of bias.
>Mr. Petrovich should be more
>astute, he should try to conceal his mythology as "Intelligent Design"
>(ID) theory. ID theory is the latest creationist (and their Discovery
>Institute allies) tactic for sneaking religion into science classes,
>according to their WEDGE document. Don't you love it when a noisy
>fringe group feels they know what's best for us. Why don't we just roll
>back the calendar to the Dark Ages.
Same comment as above. If you use a rhetorical question as in the last
sentence, use a question mark instead of a period.
>Evolution isn't about the origin of life, that theory is called
>abiogenesis.
Use two sentences instead of a comma.
> Evolution is the observed facts and resulting theory that
>explains life's diversity. Creation science, on the other hand, is
>"poof-ism". It doesn't provide any testable answers. "goddidit" is a
>non-explanation, you know, the answer you give to four year olds after
Lose the "you know"
>a full day of "why, why, why...". The ID theory, creation science's
>more sophisticated cousin, is simply the god-of-the-gaps concept
>wrapped up in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. The Roman Catholic church
>and mainstream Protestant churches accept the theory of evolution. Oh
>right, the Pope is Satan's tool and any other Christians that don't
>kowtow to fundamentalist dogma aren't "true" Christians.
Again, that's rather harsh. You are trying to be published in a newspaper,
not in a newsgroup.
>Will Mr.
>Petrovich object if a Hindu priest demands access to teach about Shiva
>dancing the world into existence.
Question mark.
>How about a Hopi Indian shaman, maybe
>an Islamic mullah.
This isn't a complete sentence. Question mark.
> Evolution is as well established as the theory of
>gravity or the germ theory of disease. Wait a minute, maybe I'm in
>trouble here, some fundamentalists will let their children waste away
>because it's "God's will" and not an infection. Puh-leeze
Puh-leeze ????
>
>I have a game we all can play. I don't like the theory of gravity, I
>feel personally insulted that engineers design structures only
>considering physical mass. What about our souls.
Question mark.
> I propose that science
>classes also teach the theory of "Intelligent Grappling". There's no
>way a weak force such as gravity can possibly hold everything onto the
>planet. It must be God, using our souls, to hold everything together.
>Have any pet theories you would like taught in science classes?
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
June
> Greetings,
>
> I'm finally getting off my duff on the evolution/creation debate and
> sending a letter to the editor about the Greensburg Salem curriculum
> changes. Since I'm only a high school graduate (well I have attempted
> college, but it was the 70s, nuff said) anybody care to critique it for
> major errors. I'd hate to look as foolish as the creationists in the
> column. I checked it with BBEdit and Appleworks (M$ Word crashes OS X's
> Classic environment), but I'm more worried about how clearly it reads.
> I borrowed ideas freely without giving credit, my apologies. Feel free
> to rip it apart. Letter text follows below.
>
> Thx,
>
> Jeff
Here are my suggestions. Value them in accordance with their cost ;) As
someone else pointed out, the idea is to get this published, so that's
the impetus for my remarks.
>
> **********
> In regards to Joe Napsha's column on June 10.
>
> As an ex-resident of Greensburg and a Hempfield graduate, I'm glad that
> Hempfield school district isn't going to be held up to world ridicule.
>
> Mr. Petrovich is an undergraduate at a bible college. That's a sound
> basis for considering him an "expert" in a real world science. NOT.
Agree with other comments that, though this is amusing, the 'NOT' should
not be used.
> Liberty University is the Ayatollah Jerry "U R to blame for 9-11"
> Falwell's propaganda machine. We can "really" expect a non-biased
> conclusion from one of its students.
I do think it's appropriate to point out which and who's college this
is, but I recommend dropping the inflammatory references to 9-11 and
Ayatollah. And maybe instead of 'non-biased' replace with (or add) 'well
balanced, scientific conclusion'.
> Mr. Petrovich should be more
> astute, he should try to conceal his mythology as "Intelligent Design"
> (ID) theory. ID theory is the latest creationist (and their Discovery
> Institute allies) tactic for sneaking religion into science classes,
> according to their WEDGE document. Don't you love it when a noisy
> fringe group feels they know what's best for us. Why don't we just roll
> back the calendar to the Dark Ages.
This is good. Maybe you could provide an internet 'address' for the
wedge document? This is the only one I have
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html
Also agree you need to add question marks here and, as appropriate,
below.
>
> Evolution isn't about the origin of life, that theory is called
> abiogenesis. Evolution is the observed facts and resulting theory that
> explains life's diversity. Creation science, on the other hand, is
> "poof-ism". It doesn't provide any testable answers.
This is good.
> "goddidit" is a
> non-explanation, you know, the answer you give to four year olds after
> a full day of "why, why, why...".
I like this point, but maybe rephrase like
"Saying 'goddidit', don't ask any more foolish questions!' is the same
response you give to your four-year-old... This is the essence of
'creation science'."
> The ID theory, creation science's
> more sophisticated cousin, is simply the god-of-the-gaps concept
> wrapped up in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.
I would incorporate this point into the paragraph above and not mix it
in here. Well phrased, good point.
> The Roman Catholic church
> and mainstream Protestant churches accept the theory of evolution. Oh
> right, the Pope is Satan's tool and any other Christians that don't
> kowtow to fundamentalist dogma aren't "true" Christians. Will Mr.
> Petrovich object if a Hindu priest demands access to teach about Shiva
> dancing the world into existence. How about a Hopi Indian shaman, maybe
> an Islamic mullah. Evolution is as well established as the theory of
> gravity or the germ theory of disease. Wait a minute, maybe I'm in
> trouble here, some fundamentalists will let their children waste away
> because it's "God's will" and not an infection. Puh-leeze
In the interests of brevity, you might want to tighten this up. Remember
question marks. I would delete everything starting with "Wait a
minute..." IMO, it doesn't add a lot to your point.
>
> I have a game we all can play. I don't like the theory of gravity, I
> feel personally insulted that engineers design structures only
> considering physical mass.
It's inappropriate for this letter, but what flashed into my mind here
was something like, "Since the Bible says that Jesus walked on water,
OBVIOUSLY the theory of gravity is counter to its teachings!" ;-)
> What about our souls. I propose that science
> classes also teach the theory of "Intelligent Grappling". There's no
> way a weak force such as gravity can possibly hold everything onto the
> planet. It must be God, using our souls, to hold everything together.
> Have any pet theories you would like taught in science classes?
Good letter, hope it gets published.
HTH, HAND
--
My 2¢ ß-}
June
richard
> basis for considering him an "expert" in a real world science. NOT.
Bad. Very bad. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously,
the very last thing you want to do is write a snotty sentence that reads
like it was written by a 12 year old. Much of the rest of your letter
has the same sort of insulting, arrogant tone that's likely going to
turn a lot of readers off before they even consider thinking about
the validity of the arguments you are making. If you want to
claim the moral high ground in this debate, you can't do it by
convincing people that you are a jerk. The path to take is
to "respectfully disagree" in a highly rational and completely
uninsulting manner. It should be the bible thumpers who
come off as being the unreasonable ones who are frothing
at the mouth, not you.
Richard
Bill Jefferys
>This is good. Maybe you could provide an internet 'address' for the
>wedge document? This is the only one I have
Here's one, I found it today after some search:
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html>
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Robert Carroll
Not bad, but too long. The comments above are right on the money, but you
don't want to sound radical, rather reasonable. Maybe focus on one or two
points. The impact will be greater, and it will be more likely to be
published.
Good luck... Bob
>
> --
> aa# 1794
>
Jeff Stubbs
<man...@lycos.com> wrote:
<snip first draft>
I want to thank everyone for the reviews here and by email. I most
definitely went over the top with the sarcasm. I'll re -write to tone
it down substantially. As several people wrote, I don't want to appear
as the one foaming at the mouth. I guess having my eleven year old told
that her father was going to hell, while at my in-laws family reunion,
just left a taste in my mouth. I'll try to work everyone's comments
into the text.
Thanks,
Jeff
--
aa# 1794
Roy Sinnamond
> Greetings,
>
> I'm finally getting off my duff on the evolution/creation debate and
> sending a letter to the editor about the Greensburg Salem curriculum
> changes. Since I'm only a high school graduate (well I have attempted
> college, but it was the 70s, nuff said)
[snip]
Small world, I grew up near Greensburg myself. My two older brothers
graduated from Hempfield in the late '70s. Brian and Bob. Perhaps you
know them?
--
Roy Sinnamond
aa #1798
EAC Minister of Cognitive Dissonance
snnmnd at comcast dot net
"That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"
stoney
<140620021018451922%man...@lycos.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Greetings,
>
>I'm finally getting off my duff on the evolution/creation debate and
>sending a letter to the editor about the Greensburg Salem curriculum
>changes. Since I'm only a high school graduate (well I have attempted
>college, but it was the 70s, nuff said) anybody care to critique it for
>major errors. I'd hate to look as foolish as the creationists in the
>column. I checked it with BBEdit and Appleworks (M$ Word crashes OS X's
>Classic environment), but I'm more worried about how clearly it reads.
>I borrowed ideas freely without giving credit, my apologies. Feel free
>to rip it apart. Letter text follows below.
>
>Thx,
>
>Jeff
>
>**********
>In regards to Joe Napsha's column on June 10.
>
>As an ex-resident of Greensburg and a Hempfield graduate, I'm glad that
>Hempfield school district isn't going to be held up to world ridicule.
>
>Mr. Petrovich is an undergraduate at a bible college. That's a sound
>basis for considering him an "expert" in a real world science. NOT.
The cutesy 'not' routine causes you to come across as uneducated.
I'd suggest using standard grammer. IMO, the cutesy sarcasm in the
next paragraph hurts your case. I'd suggest doing nothing more than
laying out the facts.
>Liberty University is the Ayatollah Jerry "U R to blame for 9-11"
>Falwell's propaganda machine. We can "really" expect a non-biased
>conclusion from one of its students. Mr. Petrovich should be more
>astute, he should try to conceal his mythology as "Intelligent Design"
>(ID) theory. ID theory is the latest creationist (and their Discovery
>Institute allies) tactic for sneaking religion into science classes,
>according to their WEDGE document. Don't you love it when a noisy
>fringe group feels they know what's best for us. Why don't we just roll
>back the calendar to the Dark Ages.
If you have a source URL for their WEDGE document, I'd suggest
providing it. Let their own words show their deciet and agenda.
note changes in brackets below...
>Evolution isn't about the origin of life, that theory is called
>abiogenesis. Evolution is {the change in alle frequencies over time).
{The facts are observed with the birth of each baby as s/he is not a
clone of the parents. Evolution is also observed via the continuing
ineffectiveness of antibiotics. The theory is an attempt to explain
the observed facts.}
Creation science, on the other hand,{ is an oxymoron as it isn't
science.}
More brackets....
>. It doesn't provide any testable answers. "Goddidit" is a
>non-explanation, you know, the answer you give to four year olds after
>a full day of "why, why, why...". The ID {assertion as it doesn't qualify as a theory, }
> creation science's
>more sophisticated cousin, is simply the god-of-the-gaps concept
>wrapped up in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. The Roman Catholic church
>and mainstream Protestant churches accept the theory of evolution.
> Oh
>right, the Pope is Satan's tool and any other Christians that don't
>kowtow to fundamentalist dogma aren't "true" Christians. Will Mr.
>Petrovich object if a Hindu priest demands access to teach about Shiva
>dancing the world into existence. How about a Hopi Indian shaman, maybe
>an Islamic mullah. Evolution is as well established as the theory of
>gravity or the germ theory of disease. Wait a minute, maybe I'm in
>trouble here, some fundamentalists will let their children waste away
>because it's "God's will" and not an infection. {Please not puh-leaze}
>
>I have a game we all can play. I don't like the theory of gravity, I
>feel personally insulted that engineers design structures only
>considering physical mass. What about our souls. I propose that science
>classes also teach the theory of "Intelligent Grappling". There's no
>way a weak force such as gravity can possibly hold everything onto the
>planet. It must be {Leprechauns or pixies, or elves} holding everything together.
>Have any pet {unsupported assertions} you would like taught in science classes?
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
Mark Whickman
> In article <140620021018451922%man...@lycos.com>, Jeff Stubbs
> <man...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> <snip first draft>
>
> I want to thank everyone for the reviews here and by email. I most
> definitely went over the top with the sarcasm. I'll re -write to tone
> it down substantially. As several people wrote, I don't want to appear
> as the one foaming at the mouth. I guess having my eleven year old told
> that her father was going to hell, while at my in-laws family reunion,
> just left a taste in my mouth.
Unfortunately for me, if someone said something like that about me to a
loved one I'd probably end up with an assault charge. Or a GBH conviction. A
forehead at 30mph can make a mess of a face.
Jeff Stubbs
<mark.w...@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
When my daughter related the incident to me about thirty minutes later,
the hairs on the back of my neck stood straight up. But it turned out
to be a thirteen year old "cousin". My daughter retorted about
believing in that "Santa Claus myth". Must not have been the reaction
the cousin was trying to provoke, since we were shunned by the fundie
crowd the rest of the day. Eight years earlier, I had a verbal debate
with this cousin's parents. I thought it was a rather polite
discussion. I must have been raked over the coals all these years.
The curious thing is, of my mother-in-laws eight siblings, only three
seem to have the "wiring defect" that permits extreme belief. All the
members of these three families seem to express it. Makes one wander
how much is nature and how much is nurture.
GBH conviction?
Jeff
--
aa# 1794
Mike the Vike
"Bill Jefferys" <bi...@warthog.as.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:bill-D94170.1...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
> At 5:23 PM +0000 6/14/02, June wrote:
>
> >This is good. Maybe you could provide an internet 'address' for the
> >wedge document? This is the only one I have
>
> Here's one, I found it today after some search:
>
> <http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html>
>
> Bill
Here is an interesting paragraph, an admission that the whole five year plan
will fail without research:
"Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward.
Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just
another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have
learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber
the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an
initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded
by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the
pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems
of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and
research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice."
Looks the Wedge won't get very far....
Mike the Vike
"Bill Jefferys" <bi...@warthog.as.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:bill-D94170.1...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
>
> >This is good. Maybe you could provide an internet 'address' for the
> >wedge document? This is the only one I have
>
> Here's one, I found it today after some search:
>
> <http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html>
>
> Bill
I would wish that such an important document should be worthy of at least a
spellcheck before being published.
For example I couldn't find the words "innuence" "Biochemirtry" "intenet"
or a proper representation of the use of the possessive for "evidence"
(evidence's) in the dictionary. Granted, the online dictionary I use may be
small or incomplete.
In reference to publications, an interesting one, perhaps a Freudian slip,
is listed - _Christian Toady_.
Mark Whickman
and other such niceties upon the victim.
Jeff Stubbs
wrote:
> In article <140620021018451922%man...@lycos.com>, Jeff Stubbs
> <man...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I'm finally getting off my duff on the evolution/creation debate and
> > sending a letter to the editor about the Greensburg Salem curriculum
> > changes. Since I'm only a high school graduate (well I have attempted
> > college, but it was the 70s, nuff said)
>
> [snip]
>
> Small world, I grew up near Greensburg myself. My two older brothers
> graduated from Hempfield in the late '70s. Brian and Bob. Perhaps you
> know them?
The last name didn't ring a bell, so I dug out my '75 yearbook. A quick
skim didn't locate them. Couldn't locate my wife's '79 yearbook so I
couldn't check the tail end of the seventies. Of course, with roughly a
thousand graduates per year, it was near impossible to know everyone. I
was from the West Hempfield area (Greenridge). Probably know somebody
who knew your brothers.
--
aa# 1794
ATC
>Greetings,
>
>I'm finally getting off my duff on the evolution/creation debate and
>sending a letter to the editor about the Greensburg Salem curriculum
>changes. Since I'm only a high school graduate (well I have attempted
>college, but it was the 70s, nuff said) anybody care to critique it for
>major errors. I'd hate to look as foolish as the creationists in the
>column. I checked it with BBEdit and Appleworks (M$ Word crashes OS X's
>Classic environment), but I'm more worried about how clearly it reads.
>I borrowed ideas freely without giving credit, my apologies. Feel free
>to rip it apart. Letter text follows below.
>
>Thx,
>
>Jeff
>
>(There follow excellent ideas)
As a practical matter, especially if you haven't done this before,
normally it's done by calling them and faxing them a draft and then
talking to them about it; you're not trying to send them something
they'll just print right off; it's a mutual thing. They'll tell you
if it's too long and they'll probably be willing to fax you back an
edited version. At least at the better papers (how many are there?)
Alexis Coudert, Miami (not one of the better papers!)