You mean like rivers of chocolate?
...yes I know it's spelled differently.
Cheers!
Posted on 04/19/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
I can't comment (because I don't know) the situation in the US, but we have plenty of tussles from leftists attempting (and too often managing) to introduce 'political correctness' into educational curricula over here. It is far more apparent in the humanities and 'soft' sciences (psych, sociology, &c) rather than the core sciences (biology, physics, earth sciences, &c). Darwin is no more 'controversial' here than Newton; the weight of evidence supporting the neo-Darwinian ToE is just too massive and compelling.
Spend a little time discussing the fact that science says nothing, one way or the other, about the existence of God. It's true, isn't it?
But then why not 'spend a little time' discussing that science says nothing about which music you should prefer, or why Tristram Shandy is a great book, or why original Star Trek was superior to Next Generation (or is it the other way around), &c. &c.?
And/or: should there also be a matching 'disclaimer' in every philosophy class or comparative religion class stating that 'philosophy can state nothing, one way or another, about the actual age of the earth,' or 'religion can state nothing about the chemical processes involved in photosynthesis'. Gets silly pretty fast.
It's a whole lot easier to simply teach the scientific method, which is rational investigation of the material world--anything else is out of scope. And--judging by some of the postings even in this present thread--some folks have never been taught the absolute basics of that scientific method.
But it won't happen, because it would hamper the agenda of the ACLU and others who see science, particularly evolution, as a tool to be used against religion. And that's where the real political agenda lies.
As a foreigner, I'm reluctant to comment here as well, though your Dover case received quite a bit of press coverage here, and I've read the trial transcript. And the question must be: what political agenda "against religion"? It was the school board attempting to introduce elements the court determined were religious, not scientific, into the curriculum that (unfortunately) got the ACLU involved. It wasn't a case of anyone attempting to introduce science into churches! It really does look far more like an agenda by a religious group that is genuinely threatened by science; and it is an American phenomenon, just not an issue elsewhere.
That's when you should be particularly grateful for your constitutional right to bear arms--a right we are denied in the UK!
You guys get the final word tonight. I'm at work and goofing off! :-)
But I have things to do, so I'll bid you farewell for the evening and likely for a few days. Tory, I thank you for your discussion and for your observations. Prof, I assume you'll read this, so thank you as well. And the same goes for all of you on both sides!
Have a great upcoming weekend, all of you!
Surely, then, God does not want us to use a less stringent standard of judgment in a jury trial than he does in evaluating the nature of the universe?
Shooting a pilfering dinner guest seems a little harsh, even in Texas. Stabbing with a steak-knife, now, that's making the punishment fit the crime.
Bedtime here; thanks for your postings,have a good weekend &c.
But if you're served escargot, what punishment could you inflict with the tongs?
No, wait, don't answer that!
Trying to get someone banned again? You know, if you post these threads 3 times a day in news/activism, you should be mature enough to deal with negative comments. Quit cowering behind the moderators.
This might be a good time to review the testimony of the defendants' Expert Witness in Kitz miller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..
Behe Cross-X Day 12 Dover ID TrialQ. [plaintiffs' attorney]: And in fact there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A.[Prof. Behe, defendants' expert witness]: That is correct, yes.
source: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf p22 line 25
From Behe's lips to God's ears....
LOL!
I'm surprised though, that the US govt. didn't fund geophysicists during the cold war, in the effort to create a subduction zone under Moscow.
Full Disclosure: Seduction follows oenology ?
Cheers!
Reminds me of a classical atheistic debating tactic--answering Pascal's wager with a counter-dilemma of higher multiplicity. :-)
Cheers!
According to my wife it's my best feature. :P
Nicely done! Oh, well played, sir!
Watch your significant figures! :-P
Cheers!
The current crop of RINOs and spineless GOP leadership ("invertebrate") in the US Senate appears to qualify nicely :-)
Cheers!
And if they're pals with Abramoff, they're nest-egged hierarchies.
Details, please?
And what I am saying is the 'facts' you believe support ID over evolution do so because you 1) Have a very poor understanding of the SToE. 2) You have a limited understanding of ID. 3) In your misunderstanding, ID fits in better with your personal belief system.
You mean like rivers of chocolate?
...yes I know it's spelled differently.
Cheers!
Did you have to bring up that urban legend?
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.