201
Adam Tjaavk
Re: Evolution & the Catholic faith
12/08/2005 15:51:00
Creationism rift opens within The Vatican
Shaoni Bhattacharya |New Scientist
A deep rift has opened within the
Catholic church over the theory of
evolution and its compatibility with
the Christian faith.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7801&f
eedId=online-news_rss20
=
http://tinyurl.com/8vjbd
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
202
Adam Tjaavk
OzID
12/08/2005 16:55:00
Intelligent design-ists
hide under science cloak
Robert Marshall |The Age
Pseudo-creationists introduce
theology into the saga of life.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/intelligent-
designists-hide-under-science-cloak/2005/08/11/1123353439397.html
=
http://tinyurl.com/bno2m
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
203
Adam Tjaavk
The faith that dare not speak its name
12/08/2005 18:05:00
The faith that dare not speak its name
The case against intelligent design
Jerry Coyne |The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
204
Adam Tjaavk
Re: Bush approves ID in schools
12/08/2005 21:19:00
Bush approves ID in schools
Harold Evans
A point of view
BBC Radio 4
10 minutes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/radio4/point_of_view.ram
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
205
Adam Tjaavk
Origins of life
15/08/2005 01:45:00
Project on the origins of life launched
Harvard joining debate on evolution
Gareth Cook |Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articl
es/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_of_life_launched/
=
http://tinyurl.com/8wohy
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
206
Adam Tjaavk
The forecourt fundamentalists
15/08/2005 03:42:00
The forecourt fundamentalists
Dangerous models to create
Mark Henderson |The Times
What is it with car dealers and creationism?
First it was Sir Peter Vardy, the founder of
the Reg Vardy chain, who invested millions
in schools to ensure that the children of
Gateshead and Middlesbrough were properly
up to speed with Genesis.
Now Bob Edmiston is getting in on the act.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-1731566,00.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
207
blackshadowcouk
Bishop Dawkins'' Priest Holes
16/08/2005 00:51:00
Bishop Dawkins' Priest Holes - or what are the evolutionists afraid
of?
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000522.php
When historian Prof. William D. Rubinstein shared his doubts about
the theory of evolution on this site the response was vituperative.
Writer and London GP Dr Myles Harris argues that the response to
those who question evolution is very different from the response to
those who question, say, the theory of the big bang. Is it because
the theory of evolution is being transformed - and in some ways
challenged - by new scientific insights and new thinking about
consciousness? Dr Harris suggests that the work of Oxford quantum
physicist and philosopher David Deutsch - himself an ardent admirer
of Richard Dawkins - challenges many of the assumptions underpinning
the traditional understanding of evolution.
Scroll down for a response from PZ Myers at:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dim_academics_and_anti_ev
olutionism/
http://tinyurl.com/a3tqe
Alan
208
blackshadowmeuk
The Cambrian as an evolutionary exemplar
17/08/2005 18:46:00
The Cambrian as an evolutionary exemplar
By PZ Myers
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/?
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_ca
mbrian_as_an_evolutio
nary_exemplar/
http://tinyurl.com/7uers
This essay by Professor PZ Myers demonstrates the abject fallacy of
the favorite anti-evolution argument of creationists (both of the
young- earth and intelligent design varieties) regarding the so-
called "Cambrian explosion." The evidence referred to in this essay
clearly shows that the "Cambrian explosion" data fit in quite well
with evolution theory.
published: Aug 15, 2005
209
Adam Tjaavk
ID: Fateful decision
20/08/2005 14:06:00
ID: Fateful decision
Editor Explains Reasons for
Intelligent Design Article
Michael Powell |Washington Post
Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg
made a fateful decision a year ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
le/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
=
http://tinyurl.com/botrf
Intelligent Design and the Smithsonian
Editorial |New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/opinion/20sat4.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
210
blackshadowcouk
Re: ID: Fateful decision
21/08/2005 01:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Tjaavk" <tjaavk@y...>
wrote:
> ID: Fateful decision
>
> Editor Explains Reasons for
> Intelligent Design Article
> Michael Powell |Washington Post
>
> Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg
> made a fateful decision a year ago.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
> le/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
> =
> http://tinyurl.com/botrf
>
> Intelligent Design and the Smithsonian
> Editorial |New York Times
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/opinion/20sat4.html
As this is obviously going to run & run with the IDC mob squealing
about victimisation, the thought police & all the usual rubbish
(which of course adds nothing to their so called theory of
intelligent design), I have included the following for interest:
(1) Welcome to the home page of Dr. Richard Sternberg
Dear Visitor,
The controversy surrounding the publication of the paper "The Origin
of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington continues. I was the managing editor of the Proceedings
at the time of publication of the paper and I handled the review and
editing process. The material on this website will clarify and
resolve many of the disputes about the paper and ensuing
controversy, including my post-publication treatment at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History.
http://www.rsternberg.net/index.htm
(2) Clarifications Regarding the BSG, Bryan College, and Richard
Sternberg, modified August 19, 2005
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/clarifications.html
(3) Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40302
<quote> Moreover, Sternberg told the journal he and Meyer have
falsely been labeled creationists by the scientific community,
noting: "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely
applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian
evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-
creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive
and well in the scientific community."
<comment> If Sternberg is not a creationist, then how comes he
manages sound so much like one. Meyer claims not to be a
creationist, but he works for an organisation (the Discovery
Institute) that is strongly associated with creationism, run by
creationists, staffed by creationists, peddling the same lies &
distortions as creationists etc. It is obvious that regardless of
Meyers personal beliefs the agenda he is helping promote is
creationist. Think of a salesperson, they do not have to personally
like (say) baked beans in order to sell them. As for Sternberg, his
paranoid reaction to the trenchant scientific criticism of
Meyer's paper just highlights where he is really coming from.
Here is a reply that clearly illustrates the gross errors in Meyers
article.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html
Alan.
211
Adam Tjaavk
A debate over Darwin
21/08/2005 13:15:00
Politicized scholars put
evolution on the defensive
Jodi Wilgoren |New York Times
SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the
debate over the teaching of evolution this month,
saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught,"
he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the
Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank
here that is at the helm of this newly volatile
frontier in the nation's culture wars
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
212
blackshadowcouk
Anti IDC letters provoke response
21/08/2005 23:37:00
What next in US schools? Alchemy?
Sir: George Bush wants intelligent design, a.k.a. creationism, to be
taught in American classrooms, side by side with evolution, so as to
give students "both sides of the debate". Why stop there? Children
could be taught medieval alchemy along with modern chemistry, flat-
earthism together with cosmology and Aristotelian physics together
with relativity.
Why is one particular laughable scientific fallacy being given such
prominence and other equally deserving candidates being neglected?
JOE WALMSWELL
LONDON E7
Sir: Intelligent design is not science; it is a strategy used by
creationists of the religious right to try and get their religious
ideas into the classroom. If their ideas had any merit, they would
have gained acceptance by the scientific establishment.
The aim of intelligent design is to spread confusion about evolution
without being too overtly religious. This will not fool scientists:
the danger is that members of the public may be tricked into
thinking that there is a controversy where none exists.
The same strategy is used by the economic right to spread doubt
about the causes of (or even the existence of) global warming.
The problem with intelligent design is that it is defeatist and
intellectually bankrupt, its proponents say, "Here is a biological
structure that we can't understand, so God did it." Scientists
say, "Here is a biological structure that we can't understand; how
can we find out about it?"
PETER FOSTER
BRISTOL
Sir: Could someone please ask George Bush (and now it seems, also
the Pope) why, if everything was so intelligently designed, it was
necessary to crash a Mars-sized planet into the earth in order to
create the moon, which could then slow our rotation sufficiently to
allow any life to develop?
And could they also ask why, as intelligent design initially led to
the domination of the dinosaurs, it was then necessary to crash a
New York-sized meteorite into Mexico in order to kill them off and
allow tiny mammals to develop into men?
Does science not come into "intelligence", or was God just making it
up as he went along?
GRAHAM RANKIN
ALES, FRANCE
Sir: Alan Howe (letter, 5 August) makes an erroneous judgment,
common among proponents of both "intelligent design" and creationist
theories: he implies that the fact that Darwin's theories are "under
attack" within the scientific community is somehow anti-evolution.
Scientific rigour demands the continual questioning and "attack" of
all current theories - it is the basis of scientific method that no
idea is allowed to stand without question, and that new data demands
new applications of logic. In other realms, such as religion and
politics, questioning might constitute an attack, but in science it
is without stigma.
ROSALIND RILEY
FRITTENDEN, KENT
Sir: It's surely no coincidence that the majority of exponents
of "intelligent design" are men. Any woman will tell you that the
female reproductive system, with its monthly difficulties and risky,
painful childbirth, has been anything but intelligently designed. Or
maybe it just proves that God is male?
JULIE COURTNEY
SEVENOAKS, KENT
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article304598.ece
These letters provoked the following replies:
Still searching for the origins of species
Sir: The Darwinian propaganda machine is once again in full swing
(letters, 9 August ) and is attempting to stifle any discussion by
equating intelligent design with creationism.
Some agnostic biologists, like myself, are interested in this and
other forms of teleology; we call this approach science. It seems
that the evolutionists are convinced that they have found the last
word on life, some of us however, doubt that they have the full
answer, and so are still searching.
DR MILTON WAINWRIGHT
DEPARTMENT OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF
SHEFFIELD
Sir: It is ironic that the US fundamentalist political right is so
sceptical about the teaching of evolution in science lessons, when
so many of its policies at home and abroad are based on Darwinian-
like principles of "survival of the fittest". At home this is
survival of the richest, abroad survival of the best-armed. In
contrast, the New Testament emphasises the duties of care for one's
neighbours, especially the needy, and of seeking peace.
PROFESSOR RICHARD BOWEN
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF WALES SWANSEA
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article305082.ece
Alan
213
Adam Tjaavk
Re: A debate over Darwin
22/08/2005 16:42:00
In explaining life's complexity,
Darwinists and doubters clash
Kenneth Chang |New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
214
Adam Tjaavk
Such a hive! - Carl Zimmer on ID output
22/08/2005 17:29:00
Such a hive! - Carl Zimmer on ID output
The Big Picture
Carl Zimmer
Corante
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/08/21/the_big_picture.php
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
215
blackshadowcouk
Photos uploaded
22/08/2005 20:09:00
Article uploaded to photos section.
To see where Hitchens is coming from, see:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/hay2005/story/0,15880,1495897,00.html
PH Oh, it's never been an issue. I returned as it were to the
Anglicanism of my childhood. Such as it was - it wasn't particularly
strong: one has some background music of Hymns Ancient & Modern and
the King James Bible, but not very much more than that. I'm probably
keener about it now than I was then. I suppose [I returned] in my
early 30s when people sometimes do, when various things start
happening. As an issue between us, I think he overestimates the
issue. He has several faiths. He has the faith I think of Darwinism,
which is just like Christianity an unproven and unprovable theory,
which you can believe in if you want because you prefer that
arrangement of the universe. I happen to think the arrangement of
the universe based on the belief in intelligent design is more
tolerable both morally and aesthetically, but he prefers another. I
dislike only the attitude of the atheist that his is not a faith,
cause it is. I have absolutely no disgust or anger at anybody who
disagrees with me about that. I'm much more worried by people who
are indifferent to the question.
216
blackshadowcouk
Update
23/08/2005 00:37:00
UK Specific - UK General - Letters
INTELLIGENT DESIGN LEADS RELIGIOUS RENAISSANCE
By Peter Hearty (19 Aug 05) – NSS - Newsline
Religion is enjoying a world-wide Renaissance, but while the demise
of the medieval world heralded an upsurge in art, literature and
science, this latter day Renaissance is a very different beast. To
it, science is a mortal enemy. Science offers an alternative path to
truth, to fill in the gaps once occupied by an almighty god. It
shows contempt for authority, demanding evidence and argument to
back its assertions. There is no room for blind faith in a world of
experts and peer reviews.
For four hundred years the European god has been in retreat in the
face of this onslaught. Now the faithful are fighting back, and in
the vanguard is the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent
Design, or I.D., postulates that there are aspects of nature,
particularly in biochemistry, which have so many interdependent
parts, that they could not have evolved gradually. The only possible
alternative is the intervention of an anonymous, benevolent,
designer.
Except of course that the designer is not anonymous. We all know
exactly who he's meant to be. The theory, and its chief
protagonists, the Seattle based Discovery Institute, exist for one
reason and one reason alone: to get the god of Abraham back into
American schools, thus subverting the ruling of the Supreme Court
and the American constitution. They failed with simple creationism,
now they're trying a more subtle approach.
I.D. pretends to be a scientific theory. With typical religious
dishonesty, there is no mention of their god. It uses the language
of science, christening itself a "theory". It employs
otherwise eminent biologists to find intricate mechanisms in nature
whose evolution is poorly understood. It vilifies its detractors,
portraying itself as a victim for daring to utter scientific heresy
– the champion of the unorthodox. Then it demands equal billing
in school science classes: "All we ask is that children be allowed
to hear both sides of the argument".
Perhaps I.D. should be taught in science classes? As one commentator
on the Newsline discussion forum said, it would take about five
minutes to dismiss; to show that, once you abandon investigation and
cause, you abandon science. The rest of the semester can then be
spent on real science. But the I.D. zealots will not stop there.
Give them a wedge in the science curriculum and it won't be long
before they demand more. In a country where the science curriculum
is decided by popular vote, there is everything to play for. In a
democracy, it is not only human institutions which must be governed
by the will of the majority, but the very universe itself.
Religions in the U.K. have no such fiddly little problems to contend
with. Here, old fashioned creationism can be taught with government
blessing and state funding. Politicians have realised that most
voters have little concern for the niceties of the science
curriculum. Faith groups, on the other hand, can be persuaded to
vote en-masse. All of a sudden, it has become respectable to wear a
belief in magic on your sleeve. From Bush to Blair to Putin, leaders
of every political colour are realising that believers have votes.
It is said that in the U.S. it is possible to have a black
president, a woman president, even a gay president, but if you are
an atheist then forget it. Surely such a state of affairs could
never happen here? Yet we learn only this week that Robin Cook, one
of the most intellectually admired and principled members of Tony
Blair's ex-ministers, felt himself unable to join the National
Secular Society for fear that it would damage his political career.
And therein lies the danger. Our religious leaders no longer wear
vestments and mitres, instead they sit around the cabinet table.
They do not preach damnation or proscription for those who fail to
conform - those who do not share their enthusiasm for blind faith,
any faith, are quietly sidelined. What use are voters who do not
believe what they are told - who do not accept the authority of
their religious superiors? And for that last bastion of rationality,
science, they have the Theory of Intelligent Design.
217
Adam Tjaavk
Re: A debate over Darwin
23/08/2005 12:35:00
Scientists speak up on
mix of God and science
Cornelia Dean |New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
218
Adam Tjaavk
Grasping the depth of time
23/08/2005 12:47:00
Grasping the depth of time as a
first step in understanding evolution
Verlyn Klinkenborg |New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/opinion/23tue3.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
219
blackshadowcouk
Report on the 2005 Mega Creation Conference
23/08/2005 22:23:00
Report on the 2005 Mega Creation Conference
Lynchburg, Virginia: July 18-July 22 2005
By Jason Rosenhouse
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/MegaCreation.cfm
In July 2005, nearly two thousand people assembled in Lynchburg, VA
to hear presentations from the biggest creationist "stars" in the
business. The following account provides a detailed description of
the goings-on at this conference.
published: Aug 23, 2005
220
Adam Tjaavk
Re: ID: Fateful decision
25/08/2005 16:37:00
Re: ID: Fateful decision
Intelligent Design Debate (Cont'd)
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
le/2005/08/24/AR2005082401906.html
=
http://tinyurl.com/8p6zh
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
221
Adam Tjaavk
George Bush & the meaning of life
28/08/2005 05:50:00
George Bush and the meaning of life
The theory of intelligent design supported
by the president shouldn't infuriate the
Darwinists — it makes sense
Bryan Appleyard |Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1753218,00.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
222
Adam Tjaavk
Re: A debate over Darwin
28/08/2005 16:50:00
Show Me the Science
Daniel Dennett
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
223
Adam Tjaavk
What would Darwin say?
29/08/2005 17:48:00
What would Darwin say?
Who designed the Designer?
Marcelo Gleiser |Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion
/oped/articles/2005/08/29/who_designed_the_designer/
=
http://tinyurl.com/a2mow
And now, digital evolution
Lee Spector |Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion
/oped/articles/2005/08/29/and_now_digital_evolution/
=
http://tinyurl.com/9v4a4
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
224
Adam Tjaavk
Intelligent Design
30/08/2005 12:51:00
Intelligent Design Has No
Place in the Science Curriculum
Harold Morowitz, Robert Hazen, & James Trefil
The Chronicle of Higher Education
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=6s7j4jqni5c
l2xpscmmlx6i5qbrnodbb
=
http://tinyurl.com/afz87
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
225
Adam Tjaavk
ID - disastrous consequences
01/09/2005 09:34:00
One side can be wrong
Accepting 'intelligent design' in science
classrooms would have disastrous consequences,
warn Richard Dawkins & Jerry Coyne |The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
226
Adam Tjaavk
Forever doubting
05/09/2005 03:36:00
My faith in always doubting
Rod Liddle |Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2762-1763688,00.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
227
Adam Tjaavk
Re: ID - disastrous consequences
06/09/2005 01:59:00
Re: ID - disastrous consequences
Designs on Darwinism
Letters in response
to Richard Dawkins's
& Jerry Coyne's
One side can be wrong
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1563423,00.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
228
blackshadowcouk
Re: George Bush & the meaning of life
06/09/2005 15:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Tjaavk" <tjaavk@y...>
wrote:
> George Bush and the meaning of life
>
> The theory of intelligent design supported
> by the president shouldn't infuriate the
> Darwinists — it makes sense
>
> Bryan Appleyard |Sunday Times
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1753218,00.html
Here is a reply to this article:
(B.A) Ever since Darwin, the Christian West has been at war with
itself. At the extreme edges of this conflict are militant atheists
like Richard Dawkins, the hot gospeller of neo-Darwinism who
believes evolution has solved the mystery of our existence, and
American Christian fundamentalists who insist that not only was
Darwin wrong, but also that the whole story told in the Bible is
literally true.
(Reply) Here B.A is giving the impression that the main opponents of
creationism are atheists & fanatical ones at that. In fact,
creationism (in ALL its forms) is universally rejected by the
scientific community, regardless of whether its members are atheist,
agnostic or religious. In short, B.A should cut this crap about the
extreme edges & at least make an effort to report the actual facts.
(Reply) Secondly, we do not have a problem with militant atheists
taking control of our schools – the real problem is with the
militant fundamentalists doing so. However, instead of highlighting
the dangers of this, B.A has instead decided to assist these
fundamentalists by spreading their lies & propaganda for them. As if
religious extremists are not causing enough problems for everyone,
The Times & B.A for some strange reason feel impelled to help them
create even more.
(Reply) It is a common creationist tactic to equate a belief in
evolution with atheism, so they can portray their opponents as
godless atheists. B.A seems to be doing exactly the same thing.
(Reply) Not so long ago, G.W. Bush berated Putin for allegedly
infringing democracy in Russia by suppressing freedom of the press.
G.W. Bush was alleging that the Russian government controlled what
Russians read. Yet is this any different to the situation in
countries like Britain & America where very rich individuals &
religious organisations can buy up the press & fill our newspapers
with garbage like B.A's article – is that what democracy is
really supposed to be about?
(B.A) Somewhere in between these two extremes are, I hope, the rest
of us.
(Reply) As Richard Dawkins has recently pointed out, (2) just
because there are two opposing viewpoints, does not mean that the
answer lies somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one side is simply
wrong. Besides, if you disagree with the ToE, you should be able to
explain why using precise scientific language & terms; rather than
going on & on about militant atheists etc.
(B.A) This usually cold war has now entered a very hot phase. The
militant atheists have been enraged by the fact that President
George W Bush has said "intelligent design" is as likely an
explanation as evolution. Meanwhile, intelligent design (ID) is
being studied and developed in some respected universities.
(Reply) Yet again, BA has repeated the lie that anyone opposing IDC
is a militant atheist. Now he has compounded this with further
distortions. Firstly, G.W. Bush did NOT say that ID is likely an
explanation as evolution but only that both sides of the issue
should be taught. His opponents have simply pointed out that as
there is no such thing as a, "theory of intelligent design",
then you cannot teach something that never existed in the first
place.
(Reply) Therefore, if there is no such thing as a theory of ID, then
how can it possibly be studied & developed in respected
universities? Well, I do not think that it possibly can be. Some of
its more prominent supporters work in universities & promote it
there; but that is hardly the same thing as studying or developing
it. Just to make sure, I asked American anti-creationist (with over
20 years experience) Lenny Flank for his is opinion on the subject
(3):
(Reply - LF) "So the answer is, no, not only is there no biology
department in any legitimate university anywhere in the United
States that does any work at all whatsoever in support of
ID "theory", but the departments where two of the most prominent
IDers work have specifically and unequivocally REJECTED any notion
of ID as science.
(Reply - LF) Whoever made the statement you refer to is either
utterly pig- ignorant, or a deliberate liar."
(B.A) The truth of what is going on here is complex yet vital. The
average newspaper reader and television viewer in Britain has, thus
far, had no chance of understanding why. The BBC, for instance,
presents anything but the strictest neo-Darwinian orthodoxy as clear
evidence of insanity.
(Reply) The truth is that a bunch of fundamentalist Christians (some
disguised in the white coats of scientific respectability) are
trying to force their absurd religious views onto other peoples
children. That is the real, TRUTH, not that you will ever learn
anything about that from B.A, who ironically, has written a pro-
creationist article in one of the UK's best selling newspapers.
No wonder then that the average newspaper reader in this country
hasn't a clue what is going on with regard the fundamentalists
– because the only thing they ever get to read from our so so-
called, "free press" is fundamentalist propaganda.
(Reply) Anyone following these issues in the UK will know that local
reporting of the concerns surrounding the issue of creationism (in
the areas where schools are being taken over creationists) is
virtually non-existent. At the same time, they are keen to report
all the positive aspects for the creationists. In other words, local
papers print stories that are highly biased towards creationism.
(Reply) Even the national papers are not that much better & anyone
without an interest in scientific issues would be forgiven for
believing that IDC represents a serious alternative to evolution.
Which is ludicrous; there is no serious alternative to the ToE & no
controversy (amongst scientists) about its correctness.
(Reply) At best, you can expect a bland statement of the opposing
views, which creates a false impression. As most people lack a firm
grasp of the issues, they therefore assume that the opposing
arguments are of equal merit when in fact, they are not.
(Reply) At worst, readers will be exposed to the hard-core
creationism of the likes of Peter Hitchens & Melanie Phillips from
the Daily Mail who regularly feed the British public creationist
propaganda on this subject. For example, only recently The Mail on
Sunday wrote a double page spread with the title, "Did Darwin get
it Wrong After All?" Although superficially detailing, "both
sides of the argument", it was still mainly biased towards a
creationist perspective.
(Reply) For example, in a big banner running down the page, it is
stated: "American scientists have come up with an amazing new
theory – known as Intelligent Design – which may rewrite our
ideas about the origins of Man. It could even bring God back into
the picture". Well that is funny, because for years now scientists
have been asking the ID movement to explain this so-called theory of
intelligent design. To date they have not received a reply; because
as previously pointed out, there is simply, no such theory. Of
course, none of this is explained to the readers of the Mail on
Sunday who are being feed on a diet of creationist lies & do not
even realise it.
(Reply) As for the BBC, I have gone back over recent stories
reported by them on this issue. In no cases can I find evidence that
they do anything other than report the opposing viewpoints (with the
danger this entails explained above). They most certainly do not
label anyone disagreeing with, "anything but the strictest neo-
Darwinian orthodoxy", as displaying evidence of insanity & such
an assertion is utter rubbish. No, it is hard to see B.A's
comments as anything other than a complaint against the BBC for
having the audacity to put forward the undisputedly held, majority
view of the scientific community.
(B.A) Knots need to be unpicked. First, the world is purposefully
designed. Sharks have teeth to capture their prey and trees have
leaves to capture sunlight. In the absence of any competing
hypothesis, it is rational to assume that an intelligence, God
perhaps, is at work.
(Reply) It was Paley, who originated, "argument from design"
nearly 200 years ago, only to have it blown clean out of the water
roughly 50 years later by Darwin. That was 150 years ago & nothing
has changed to make anyone even consider reverting again. Unless you
want to count the fact that The Discovery Institute is being paid a
lot of money to fund a massive marketing campaign suggesting
otherwise, but that is hardly science is it. And it certainly
isn't news either, because B.A & The Times will not tell you
about it.
(B.A) Enter Darwin. He said that, once a stable replicative process
is established in nature, then errors will occur. A few beneficial
errors will render replicators — organisms — better adapted
and, therefore, better able to reproduce. Over billions of years,
this simple process will lead to the variety of life we see around
us today. Note that Darwin did not say how this system works nor how
it began. He had no idea.
(B.A) Since then, we have begun to understand how evolution works.
DNA is the replicator at the heart of the system and errors in the
transcription of this molecule result in mutations, most of which
are harmful but some of which are beneficial. The combination of
Darwinism and molecular biology has created the orthodoxy known as
neo-Darwinism.
(B.A) None of which has — or should have — the slightest
consequence for religious belief. Indeed, to a Taoist, Hindu or
Buddhist, Darwinism must appear irrelevant, trivial or obvious. Even
a Christian shouldn't really be bothered. Of course, Darwinism
shows the Bible is not literally accurate if only because it
requires the earth to be billions rather than thousands of years
old — but treating biblical stories as metaphors, not literal
truths, is a commonplace of Christian theology.
(Reply) If you are a Christian who believes in theistic evolution,
then this is true. However, this view only began to be accepted
after Darwin formulated ToE. Before then, most Christians naturally
believed that God created man as described in the Bible. Even today,
many Christians continue to adhere to this ancient belief. For this
group of people, i.e. the creationists, Darwinism most clearly does
have consequences, as it is in direct conflict with their beliefs.
(Reply) Besides many biblical literalists accept the idea of an old
Earth although it does not change one little bit, their antagonism
to evolution, as it renders the concept of supernatural creationism
superfluous & untenable. This is true regardless of how creationists
are classified. YE, OE or ID – in this respect they are all the
same.
(B.A) Darwinism did not, as we are sometimes told, "explain
life". What the theory explains is what happens once life, or at
least replication, gets going. Darwin did not know how replication
began and, contrary to what you may think, neither do we.
(Reply) As it is not (& never has been) necessary to understand
abiogenesis (the study of how life first started) in order to
understand ToE, this point is irrelevant. Moreover, the degree of
ignorance has been exaggerated & as far as I am aware, the field of
abiogenesis is thriving with many competing hypothesis.
(Reply) As scientists have never claimed that the ToE explains how
life begun, it is hardly their fault if the lay public thinks
otherwise. Perhaps the answer is to spend more time teaching
children about evolution at school.
(B.A) At the back of your mind is the idea that a lightning flash
triggered a replicative system in the primordial soup, and suddenly
the show was on the road. You may also be dimly aware of the Miller-
Urey experiment in 1953 in which soup was created in the lab and
bombarded with lightning. Amino acids appeared. Bingo! Nope. Amino
acids, the chemicals that make proteins, are thermodynamically
speaking easy.
(B.A) In fact, we now know that the odds against a stable
replicative system establishing itself in the soup by chance are
overwhelming. We absolutely do not know what started life and it
remains the most staggeringly weird and improbable development.
(Reply) Only two paragraphs ago we were informed that no one
understood how replication began. If this is the case, then how
exactly has he arrived at this conclusion? Because if an event is
not understood, it does not logically follow that it cannot be
explained eventually by known physical laws or will by default,
involve supernatural processes.
(Reply) Also, just because scientists cannot say exactly how life
began does not mean they do not have some good ideas of the
principles involved.
(Reply) It is a standard creationist tactic to attempt to undermine
evolution by confusing it with abiogenesis & B.A appears to have
been reading too much of their literature.
(B.A) Neo-Darwinians must, reluctantly, accept this.
(Reply) Given that they already know this & it represents not the
slightest problem to the ToE, this statement is disingenuous &
totally irrelevant.
(B.A) But the slightest suggestion that the orthodoxy is, in any
way, incomplete is treated with contempt.
(Reply) Nonsense, as explained above, ignorance of abiogenesis does
not translate into a problem for ToE but that does not stop people
like B.A repeating the same erroneous argument, over & over
again.
(B.A) In fact, the orthodoxy is incomplete, and even among the ranks
of strict Darwinians there are profound disputes about the mechanism
of evolution. The late Stephen Jay Gould, for example, regarded the
gene-centred orthodoxy as wrong-headed.
(Reply) It is misleading to equate controversy about issues within
evolution with uncertainty about evolutions standing as a theory.
Amongst scientists, it is no more contentious or doubted than other
mainstream theories such as relativity or quantum mechanics. However
that does not stop people like B.A & the creationists from claiming
otherwise, regardless of how often their claims are debunked.
(B.A) It is in this context that ID should be understood. Mainstream
ID contradicts the fundamentalists' faith in the chronology of
the Bible since it accepts the billions of years necessary for the
development of life at its present levels of complexity.
(Reply) Old Earth creationists also accept an ancient Universe, yet
both they & IDC are still very hostile to the ToE – and for the
same reason. Because contrary to good scientific practice, they have
a conclusion and anything deemed by them to be contradicting it,
such as the ToE just better get out of the way.
(B.A) My problem with ID is its name. "Intelligent" design?
Nothing in the many questions that have been asked of neo-Darwinism
necessarily points to an intelligence behind the development of
life. Rather, the argument is simply that natural selection may not
be the only force at work.
(Reply) If that is the case then, why don't they just say that
– why do they insist on denigrating evolutionary theory instead.
Why don't ID's supporters come up with some proof to support
their assertions; rather than running around screaming & shouting
about how hard done by they are. In fact, if that is all they have
to say,
then why even talk about intelligent design in the first place?
(Reply) Actually, intelligent design appears to be nothing more than
scientific creationism with its biblical balls cut off to make it
more socially & constitutionally (in America – In this country we
have Blair, who just does what he feels like) acceptable.
(B.A) Life may, for example, have started and be sustained by an
innate drive towards complexity within the laws of physics. This
would explain why life began so soon, a few hundred million years,
after the formation of earth.
(Reply) Yes, but existing known physical processes as found in for
instance, physics, chemistry & evolution seem more than adequate to
explain how life began, even if the exact details are unknown.
However, the fact that these details are unknown, does not by
default bolster alternative explanations for which there is
absolutely no evidence.
(B.A) Of course, some adherents to ID are driven by a need to
establish religious rather than scientific truth.
(Reply) Given that the ID movement was founded by creationists, is
funded mainly by creationists, staffed & supported by creationists,
uses many of the same arguments & tactics as creationists, has the
same hostility to science as creationists, has the same hostility
to, atheism as creationists, uses the same rhetoric as creationists,
tell the same lies as creationists & want to get at school kids,
just like the creationists; then I tend to think that, "some"
seems to be just a bit of an understatement.
(B.A) But neo-Darwinism has also in many cases abandoned proper
scientific inquiry. Instead of testing the theory against the world,
its most passionate advocates test the world against the theory. And
neo-Darwinians are constantly, and often wrongly, trying to elevate
their insights into a dogmatic system.
(Reply) That sounds like something copied & pasted from some
creationist diatribe, rather than a reasoned scientific opinion.
However, even if you accepted this statement to be true, how does
the misuse of evolutionary theory invalidate that theory or give
credence to IDC?
(B.A) The co-decipherer of DNA, Francis Crick, for example, once
defined the "central dogma" of molecular biology as the
one-way flow of information from gene to organism. This
central "dogma" would stop evolution in its tracks —
information has to flow back to the DNA from the organism, most
obviously by its death, to tell the DNA it got something wrong.
(Reply) I am at complete loss to understand how an explanation for
the process by which the DNA carries out its function (4) should
detract from other aspects of evolutionary theory.
(B.A) Furthermore, the claims of neo-Darwinism have been expanding.
In the form of evolutionary psychology it now claims to be able to
explain human behaviour in spite of the fact that a key aspect of
human behaviour is that it has stopped the processes of evolution,
by, for example, using contraception and keeping handicapped people
alive.
(Reply) Of course it will expand, as it is human nature to try to
find different uses for materials & ideas. A chemical first
developed for the plastics industry, might turn up in paints,
foodstuffs or explosives. However, no matter how well or how badly
evolutionary principles are applied in other fields, it is
completely irrelevant to their soundness in their original one.
(B.A) Darwinism is a potent and, within certain limitations,
unarguable theory. But the one truth that we can take from the work
of that greatest of all naturalists is that humans are dependent on
a system bigger than themselves and which, in all probability, they
can never hope fully to understand.
(Reply) Pure conjecture, the ToE has nothing whatsoever to say about
a bigger system, especially a supernatural one. Moreover, scientific
advances (be it in geology, astronomy etc, or evolution) have tended
to make supernatural explanations of physical events increasingly
less plausible.
(Reply) In fact, given the complexity & versatility of existing
physical laws & their known ability to shape physical matter into
the myriad forms we see around us, then it is hard to see why it is
necessary to tag on some mysterious undefined function, which seems
to add nothing new in the way of increased explanatory ability.
(Reply) Of course, there is still much to learn, but trying to
explain every gap in our knowledge by invoking an intelligent
designer (be it the natural or the supernatural variety) is an act
of desperate futility.
(Reply)
(1) http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/15015_summit.html
(2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
(3) (Full reply at:)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/78282
(4) Here is a typical explanation of The Central Dogma of Biology
http://web.mit.edu/esgbio/www/dogma/dogma.html
229
blackshadowcouk
Joke from Debunk Creation
06/09/2005 23:31:00
The following was posted recently over at Debunk Creation:
Several members of the Discovery Insitute boarded a flight in
Seattle. One took the window seat and the other the middle seat. A
short while later a biology professor from the Univ. of Wash. took
the aisle seat.
After the flight took off, the professor took off his shoes and
settled in. One of the creationists asked the professor where he was
headed for. He responded that he was going to an Evolutionary
Biology Conference. He then asked the creationists where they were
going. They said they were going to a Creationist Convention.
A short while later the creationist sitting in the window seat
says, "I'd like to get a Coke." The professor says, "I'll
get one for you." When he is gone one of the creationist spits in the
professor's shoe. The professor comes back with the Coke. The other
creationist says, "That looks good." Would you mind getting one for
me too."
The professor says sure and goes to get another Coke.
While he is gone the other creationist spits in the professor's shoe.
Just before landing the professor slips on his shoes and realizes
what happened. He says, "How long must this go on" he asks the
creationists: "This fighting between creationists and evolutionists,
the hatred, the animosity, this spitting in shoes and pissing in
Cokes?"
230
Adam Tjaavk
Re: ID - disastrous consequences
07/09/2005 11:33:00
Re: ID - disastrous consequences
In defence of Darwinism
Robert Foley |The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1564042,00.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
231
blackshadowcouk
Removed Curriculum
07/09/2005 23:53:00
Site update at:
http://www.creationism.co.uk/html/removed_curriculum.html
232
blackshadowcouk
State-of-art academy set to open its doors
08/09/2005 09:31:00
State-of-art academy set to open its doors
http://www.gooletimes.co.uk/newspages/subnews6.html
Thorne's new £24 million Academy - to replace the town's
Grammar School - is set to open its doors to staff and pupils this
month. Finishing touches are this week being put to the new
building, fronting Church Balk, which has taken fifteen months to
build. The first intake of pupils, due to cross the threshold next
Thursday, September 8, will enter a state-of-the-art facility which
will specialise in business and enterprise.
Although the first pupils are not due until next Thursday, local
residents and neighbours have already been given a sneak preview of
what the Academy will offer - when they attended a special `look-
around' evening last week. They were welcomed by Principal Ian
Brew in the 450-seat lecture theatre, where mention of the policy
that will prevent students from leaving school during the day drew a
spontaneous round of applause.
They were then taken on group tours to see the sports hall, changing
facilities, dance studio and fitness suite and some of the
Academy's 80 classrooms, including graphics, textiles, food,
multi-material rooms and science laboratories.
The IT server room is bigger than that of many businesses and serves
750 personal computers located in classroom and study areas
throughout the Academy, and linked into the school network, The
visitors also saw the staffroom and Sixth Form study centre and
common room and learned how the closed-circuit television system
which will enable all activity to be monitored round the clock
throughout the building and its grounds.
Strict discipline will be one of the key aims of the new Academy -
with compulsory uniform, a house system, prefects and detention all
being used as tools in the drive for excellence.While the raising of
academic standards is paramount, Mr Brew stressed that they would be
striving to educate the whole being - an outward bound weekend is
planned for sixth formers, two specialists had been recruited to
develop rugby throughout the school, and high levels of pastoral
care would be available.
Following the visit Mr Brew said: "I'm delighted so many of
our neighbours took the time to come and visit the Academy. They
have had to put up with traffic and noise during the last 15 months
and we wanted to thank them for their patience and understanding.
"The Academy is more than a school, it's an asset for the
community and what happens here will be very much a partnership
effort between students, staff, parents, governors and the local
people of Thorne.
With their support we can make it a school to be proud of."
Work is currently under way to demolish most of the former Grammar
School, which has served the town for the last 75 years. Only the
front wing will be retained, and converted into flats. Two smaller
blocks of flats will be built nearby - alongside the tennis courts.
233
blackshadowcouk
Talk Reason Update
09/09/2005 14:52:00
The evolution wars enter the "No Spin Zone"
By Jason Rosenhouse
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/OReilly.cfm
Jason Rosenhouse demonstrates how TV show host O'Reilly and the
former editor of Proceedings of The Biological Society of Washington
von Sternberg competed in front of their TV audience in
misrepresenting the story of the publication of a pro-ID review paper
by S. Meyer in that magazine and of the following
alleged "persecution" of Sternberg by those vile mainstream
scientists and the Smithsonian Institution.
published: Sep 09, 2005
234
Adam Tjaavk
Flying Spaghetti Monster
11/09/2005 07:23:00
In the beginning there was
the Flying Spaghetti Monster
James Langton |Sunday Telegraph
In recent weeks, a satirical attack on
the teaching of Creationism in American
schools has become the world's fastest
growing 'religion'. The Noodly Saviour
looked at the furore He had created
and pronounced it good.
http://tinyurl.com/adbv5
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
235
Adam Tjaavk
Debating Darwin
12/09/2005 08:37:00
Debating Darwin
An age-old discussion evolves yet
again; two new books take a look
Jerome Weeks |The Dallas Morning News
http://www.fredbortz.com/review/DebatingDarwin.htm
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
236
Adam Tjaavk
A design for life
12/09/2005 08:53:00
A design for life
John Sutherland meets Michael Behe,
a leading proponent of intelligent
design, the controversial theory
that evolution alone cannot explain
life's complexity |The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1567978,00.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
237
blackshadowcouk
Talk Reason Update
12/09/2005 19:57:00
Review
The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed
By Hector Avalos, Iowa State University
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Avalos.cfm
The Privileged Planet, authored by Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer,
and Jay W. Richards, a theologian, is a new version of arguments that
were already well-developed by the time of Cicero in the first
century BCE. This essay compares some of the specific arguments in
The Privileged Planet to those of Cicero, William Paley, and Philip
Mauro, an author of the famous Fundamentals, and shows why those
arguments for Intelligent Design were as flawed then as they are now.
published: Sep 11, 2005
238
blackshadowcouk
ID proponents pushing religion
13/09/2005 00:35:00
ID proponents pushing religion
York Daily Record - York, PA, USA
Intelligent design was first coined in Christian creationist
literature ... in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid
overtones of theistic creationism is a ...
http://tinyurl.com/8pgyk
239
blackshadowcouk
Potter story
13/09/2005 00:43:00
Saving this so I can pick it up with FURL
This is the North East. Feb 04 (from google cache)
Potter banned over 'witchcraft' theme
by Chris Brayshay
HARRY POTTER books have been banned from a school library over
concerns they include witchcraft themes.
Staff at the £20m King's Academy school, in Coulby Newham,
Middlesbrough, felt some of the themes were unsuitable for pupils.
Although youngsters are still allowed to take their own copies of
the books to school to read, they will not be able to find the
adventures in the library.
It is believed headteacher Nigel McQuoid took the decision after
discussions involving librarians and teaching staff before the
school opened in September.
Mr McQuoid said: "The King's Academy policy on the books it stocks
is that it seeks agreement among its staff on certain titles, and we
have plenty of scope to stock books on which they do agree."
Parents said that pupils had also been forbidden to write about
Harry's adventures when they were given assignments to write about
their favourite books and stories.
One said: "The kids were told Harry Potter was not a candidate
because of its witchcraft theme, which is a bit over the top because
of the huge success of the books.
"If a child wants to go and read one of the books, they just need to
walk into WHSmith.
"It is not a case of having to obtain the books on the black market.
"The books are everywhere, while you can see Harry Potter at the
cinema and on the television."
King's Academy is supported by the Reg Vardy Foundation, headed by
garage owner Sir Peter Vardy, a Christian fundamentalist.
The move to ban Harry Potter has, however, not been backed by
religious groups.
The Reverend Mike Proctor, minister for the nearby St Mark's Local
Ecumenical Partnership, said he read Harry Potter books to his son.
He said: "I think the books are particularly well written and are
very interesting."
A spokesman for Middlesbrough Council said: "We have to stress that
this school is independent of the local education authority. What
goes into a school's library is a matter for the headmaster."
A spokeswomen for the Department for Education and Skills said: "The
situation is as long as this academy is following the national
curriculum, it is up to the school whether they want to do this or
not."
240
Adam Tjaavk
Make room for Marduk
13/09/2005 10:01:00
Make room for Marduk
Tom Lutz |Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-lutz13sep13,0,1653346.story
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
241
blackshadowmeuk
Extremism at heart of academies – MP
14/09/2005 14:19:00
Extremism at heart of academies – MP
Sep 13 2005
By Jonathan Walker, Political Editor
Controversial plans for privately- funded schools across the Midlands
are driven by religious "extremism" at the heart of Government, a
Labour MP has claimed.
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100l
ocalnews/tm_objectid=
16124472&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=extremism-at-heart-of-
academies---mp--name_page.html
http://tinyurl.com/afxmn
Alan
242
Adam Tjaavk
The devolution of a believer
19/09/2005 09:50:00
The devolution of a believer
John Darnton |Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-darnton1
9sep19,0,1286695.story
=
http://tinyurl.com/du5as
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
243
Adam Tjaavk
Why Darwin''s still a scientific hotshot
19/09/2005 10:12:00
Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot
James Watson |Los Angeles Times
http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk
-watson18sep18,0,529081.htmlstory
=
http://tinyurl.com/7wbgk
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
244
Adam Tjaavk
Answering creationists
21/09/2005 05:10:00
Challenged by Creationists,
Museums Answer Back
Cornelia Dean
New York Times
http://tinyurl.com/82q7b
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
245
Adam Tjaavk
Re: Answering creationists
21/09/2005 05:55:00
Re: Answering creationists
No Wonder
Ophelia Benson
Butterflies & Wheels
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=987
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
246
blackshadowcouk
Site Update
21/09/2005 12:10:00
Adding this entry to the FAQ's
In a recent BBC 1 Look North program (7 Sept 05), a campaigner
opposing the teaching of creationism in British schools was apparently
accused of being anti-Christian. As a result, she got little time to
present her concerns about the dangers of allowing fundamentalists to
run schools & floundered instead as she then attempted to defend
herself against the accusation. I did not personally see the program
but from what I am led to understand, the presenter, Christa Ackroyd
was very aggressive & dismissive of the anti-creationist campaigner.
Question – Are the people who are opposing the teaching of
creationism (or its tenets) simply anti-Christian?
<Making an accusation like this (especially if your case is weak in
the first place), can have a devastating effect on the presentation of
an opponent who is then forced to defend his/her position, rather you
attack yours>
Answer - Many of opponents of creationism are Christian, so obviously
that is wrong. Creationism is opposed by many people because it is
straightforward nonsense; the Bible is not a literal interpretation of
past events & it should not be presented as such.
If a rich German was to take over a school & teach that WWII never
happened (in the face of protests from those old enough to have lived
through it), then obviously you do not have to be anti-German to find
such a move objectionable. Likewise, just because you oppose
creationism it doesn't necessarily make you anti-Christian.
A secularist might add that it is not a function of the state to
assist fundamentalists wishing to force their extreme beliefs onto
other people's children and it should be possible to point this
out without being subject to personal attack by ignorant journalists
who are either creationists or creationist sympathisers.
247
Mikey Brass
Re: Site Update
21/09/2005 19:05:00
You should provide some references, like Kenneth Miller's book or even
better archaeological analyses such as Willam Dever's books.
248
blackshadowcouk
Re: Site Update
21/09/2005 23:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@a...> wrote:
> You should provide some references, like Kenneth Miller's book or even
> better archaeological analyses such as Willam Dever's books.
Thanks Mike, I will look into doing this.
Alan.
249
oeditor
Evolution/Creation booklist
22/09/2005 16:35:00
You may well have come across this already, but just in case...
E/C Annotated Booklist: Open for suggestions/additions
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=44461
It started in 2003, and was opened to discussion earlier this year.
Brian
250
blackshadowmeuk
Re: Evolution/Creation booklist
23/09/2005 00:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@l...> wrote:
> You may well have come across this already, but just in case...
> E/C Annotated Booklist: Open for suggestions/additions
> http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=44461
>
> It started in 2003, and was opened to discussion earlier this year.
>
> Brian
Thanks Brian, I have FURLED it under books.
