2651
Rudy Vonk
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
10/09/2006 16:16:00
Roger,
Just a thought (from a territory where I haven't detected a single
creationist worth bashing): your comments on ID in the USA may well be
accurate - I try not to become over-optimistic - but the issue in the
UK, very serious as it is, is simply creationism. Perhaps the same is
happening in the USA. ID is a lead balloon, so everybody retrenches
into creationism. Those famous polls where half the population believes
we have no common ancestor with apes or mosquitos or bacteria, and a
little less than half believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, are
not about ID (bacterial flagella, vertebrate eyes, etc.) but about
creationism.
Perhaps ID (how many idiots are we talking about; a couple of dozen?)
made a very big strategic mistake in marketing itself as non-religious.
Now, they will just regroup in religion, which goes down bigtime with
the Great American Public (whereas science doesn't). The ultimate enemy
is not the Discovery Institute (which will self-destruct sooner or
later) but all those creationist nutters that you yourself are doing a
stalwart job of exposing.
2652
Rudy Vonk
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
10/09/2006 16:20:00
On 10 sep 2006, at 14:44, Doug Devers wrote:
> I know quite a few people here (in Oklahoma) who would dearly love to
> see that changed. A few even openly advocate some form of theocracy.
> Are we safe in assuming the constitution will forever prohibit that?
Sadly, unlike Lenny, I don't think you are...
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2653
oeditor
Re: Josh revealed (slightly)
10/09/2006 16:43:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> BTW, I've emailed Derbyshire Secularists asking if they've come across
> him.
>
I've had a pleasant letter from Mike Lake at Derbyshire Secularists.
They don't know Josh, and wonder why I'm asking. In Mike's experience,
the creationists aren't at all secretive and trumpet their beliefs
loudly. There aren't any causing trouble in Derbyshire, he reckons.
Do you think I should point him to the web site, Roger?
Brian
2654
oeditor
SIMPSONS 18:30 EVOLUTION EPISODE
10/09/2006 18:18:00
On any minute!
Lisa gets in trouble over school's ruling on evolution.
Brian
2655
Roger Stanyard
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
10/09/2006 18:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
> In the meantime, we
> > are merely feeling the beginning in England. It will, however,
fail
> > over here because of very different socio-religious practices.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Creationism/ID seems to be uniquely an American phenomenon. I
don't
> think they will be able to successfully export their revolution
> anywhere else.
>
(It seems pretty rampant in Canada and Australia.)
I hope that it is the case but I am pessimistic. Everytime I look at
this, it seems the fundamentalists are much better entrenched and
organised in the UK that I thought.
It now looks as if Truth in Science is funded and is distributing
creationist material to school teachers in the state sector.
We saw Ken Ham last week attracting an audience of 400 in a smallish
English city, at virtually no notice. And this is a place where a
third of the population are Hindu or not even nominally Christian.
They are well into the Church of England - even the churches round
here are displaying AiG pamphlets and this is a liberal prosperous
place. They have inflitrated a major pressure group, the Lord's Day
Observance Society, have their own (the Christian Institute), they
are even getting into the prisons!
Every time I look at the speaking engagements of the creationist
organisations I see long lists of presentation after presentation
across the country. If this was a political party, existing
politicians would be worried.
Peter Henderson, over at SJS, has suggested that creationism is
probably now accepted by the majority of the protestant population of
Northern Ireland (it seems to be widespread amongst the Republic's
tiny protestant minority as well).
>
> ===================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> My Reptile Page
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
>
2656
Roger Stanyard
Re: Josh revealed (slightly)
10/09/2006 18:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I've emailed Derbyshire Secularists asking if they've come
across
> > him.
> >
> I've had a pleasant letter from Mike Lake at Derbyshire Secularists.
> They don't know Josh, and wonder why I'm asking. In Mike's experience,
> the creationists aren't at all secretive and trumpet their beliefs
> loudly. There aren't any causing trouble in Derbyshire, he reckons.
>
> Do you think I should point him to the web site, Roger?
>
> Brian
Brian, I assume you mean our web site. Yes! Let's get as much publicity
as we can from it.
It's our biggest selling point to the outside world at present. Don't
forget the nutters have their own conference centre at Swanwick which
is in Derbyshire. We might want to work with the secularists there
sometime!
It's a growing site. Last time I counted it had 235 pages on it. If
anyone wants to do some proof reading, I would be delighted. Using a
wikie is dead easy and I have including a link that explains the PMWiki
instructions.
For what it is worth, what I set out to provide on it is complete (it
can never be absolutely complete and needs constant updating as we are
currently doing). We have all of the known activists profiled, all of
the main creationist organisations detailed, the links between them
shown, loads of background material on such areas as the Vardy schools
and so on.
Methinks the next move is to build up a list of media contacts both
national and local/regional (in the latter case concentrating on
specific areas where we think there is a problem, like the North East,
Lancashire and Liverpool).
Seems to me that the best place to start is the science and religious
correspondents of the national press and the BBC, ITV, C4 and Sky News.
Lawrence McGinty at ITN is an old acquaintance of mine so I can handle
that but does anybody have details of other media contacts? We don't
need to display publically such a list on the web site - it has a
facility for individual pages to be accessed by members/friends only.
2657
Ian Lowe
RE: SIMPSONS 18:30 EVOLUTION EPISODE
10/09/2006 19:40:00
Heh.
Excellent, as always. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of oeditor
Sent: 10 September 2006 18:19
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] SIMPSONS 18:30 EVOLUTION EPISODE
On any minute!
Lisa gets in trouble over school's ruling on evolution.
Brian
2658
Lenny Flank
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
10/09/2006 19:56:00
> > The ultimate enemy is not the Discovery Institute (which will
> self-destruct sooner or later) but all those creationist nutters that
> you yourself are doing a stalwart job of exposing.
The ultimate enemy is the political structure that allows the nutters
to put their nuttiness into effect.
If they had no political power, the creationists would be as
ignorable and harmless as the Flat Earthers and Geocentrists are.
So the task is to remove the fundies from any connection with
political power.
They can preach in their churches every Sunday until Jesus comes
back, and I couldn't care less.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
2659
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
10/09/2006 19:57:00
> > (It seems pretty rampant in Canada and Australia.)
>
>
Only because there are American resources and money behind it.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
2660
George Jelliss
Re: Josh revealed (slightly)
10/09/2006 22:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I've emailed Derbyshire Secularists asking if they've come >
> across
> > him.
>
> Derby is basically on the border with Leicestershire so maybe
> Leicester Secular Society may know about him.
>
No. Not known to us.
Swanwick by the way, though in Derbyshire, is quite a way north of
Derby, nearer to Nottingham, Alfreton, Mansfield, Sutton-in-Ashfield
and even Chesterfield.
2661
George Jelliss
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
10/09/2006 22:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
> ///
> Creationism/ID seems to be uniquely an American phenomenon.
> I don't think they will be able to successfully export
> their revolution anywhere else.
>
Creationism is also strong in the Muslim community in the UK, and
worldwide. Ibrahim Mogra, for instance, in replying to my Darwin Day
article in the Leicester Mercury, wrote:
"Although I have said Muslims must embrace scientific findings,
these findings will still be subject to scrutiny under the light of
the teachings of the Koran. That is exactly why Darwin's theory of
Evolution, suggesting the human being started as something very
different, is not acceptable. The Koran endorses that everything was
created from water, and that the human being is created in the best
form - from Adam - walking upright and conversing intelligently,
always learning to utilise God's bounties to better their lives."
However he does accept that the "six days" of creation can be
interpreted as a longer period, so this is not quite young-earth
creationism.
There is also the Turkish (I think ) 'Harun Yahya' who prety much
echoes 'Answers in Genesis', but in terms of Islam.
2662
Roger Stanyard
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
11/09/2006 00:04:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@> wrote:
> > ///
> > Creationism/ID seems to be uniquely an American phenomenon.
> > I don't think they will be able to successfully export
> > their revolution anywhere else.
> >
>
> Creationism is also strong in the Muslim community in the UK, and
> worldwide. Ibrahim Mogra, for instance, in replying to my Darwin
Day
> article in the Leicester Mercury, wrote:
I must admit that the anti-creationist movement in the UK is
desperately weak on the position of creationism amongst Muslims.
Anything on this would be much appreciated.
Roger
>
>
> There is also the Turkish (I think ) 'Harun Yahya' who prety much
> echoes 'Answers in Genesis', but in terms of Islam.
It is Turkish but the connection, IIRC, is not with AiG but the ICR.
My understanding is that the ICR did a deal with them a few years
back where Harun Yahya was able to republish/rehash ICR material in
Turkish (I dunno if it extended to other languages as well). ICR
bragged about the deal.
>
2663
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
11/09/2006 00:47:00
On 10/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> (It seems pretty rampant in Canada and Australia.)
I hadn't noticed so much in Canada as of yet, but Australia is quite a
different matter.
> I hope that it is the case but I am pessimistic. Everytime I look at
> this, it seems the fundamentalists are much better entrenched and
> organised in the UK that I thought.
The extent to which they are entrenched certainly surprised me. But
they have been working at this for a while. The Christian Institute
has been at work for at least a decade now, for example, and they are
newer to this than many.
> It now looks as if Truth in Science is funded and is distributing
> creationist material to school teachers in the state sector.
>
> We saw Ken Ham last week attracting an audience of 400 in a smallish
> English city, at virtually no notice. And this is a place where a
> third of the population are Hindu or not even nominally Christian.
>
> They are well into the Church of England - even the churches round
> here are displaying AiG pamphlets and this is a liberal prosperous
> place. They have inflitrated a major pressure group, the Lord's Day
> Observance Society, have their own (the Christian Institute), they
> are even getting into the prisons!
We have our own religious organisations getting into the prisons and
trying to get paid for it - with more than simply lip service from the
Right. Not something I have been tracking that closely, but the
argument is that getting religion cuts down on recidivism. There may
be some truth to that: practicing the goose-step will necessarily
take time away from your other extracurricular activities.
> Every time I look at the speaking engagements of the creationist
> organisations I see long lists of presentation after presentation
> across the country. If this was a political party, existing
> politicians would be worried.
>
> Peter Henderson, over at SJS, has suggested that creationism is
> probably now accepted by the majority of the protestant population of
> Northern Ireland (it seems to be widespread amongst the Republic's
> tiny protestant minority as well).
I expected as much.
It is simply a case of complementary schismogenesis pushing both sides
towards greater and greater extremism. Fundamentalism (in one form or
another) fuels the "us vs. them" mentality and is fueled by means of
it. Either you share our views, all of our views, or you are against
us. The religious conflict of North Ireland is the ideal
breeding-ground for creationists on both sides.
2664
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Josh revealed (slightly)
11/09/2006 11:35:00
To get Stumbleupon working, you need to get their toolbar. But it's
still pretty weak.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
> >
> > Still curious, I googled on friend "Josh" and came up with:
> > http://blackcougar.stumbleupon.com/
> <http://blackcougar.stumbleupon.com/>
> >
> > I'm sure it's Josh, because if you click on "Discoveries" you find
> > several AiG books listed. I'm blowed if I can fathom how stumblupon
> > works though and I don't want to install stumble. It looks as if it
> > ought to be possible to see his blog, but I can't do it. Any stumblers
> > here who could have a look?
> >
> > BTW, I've emailed Derbyshire Secularists asking if they've come across
> > him.
>
> Derby is basically on the border with Leicestershire so maybe Leicester
> Secular Society may know about him.
>
> I'm buggered if I can found out how stumblupon works. Looks to me to be
> utterly amateur and seriously badly thought out.
>
> Just a bit of care with Josh - he claimed to be two years into an
> honours degree at the open university but from the information given he
> is only 19. That means he hasn't started his second year - he is only
> part-time as well.
>
> Moreover, the way the OU works is that effectively its basic degree is
> equivalent of a two year degree without honours. Opting for honours is
> taken after the pass degree is awarded, not before it.
>
> Roger
>
>
2665
Ian Lowe
Heads up...
11/09/2006 12:24:00
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5325190.stm
I would suggest having a formal position on this - you can bet your ass that
each and every religion with an axe to grind will be using these events to
try to influence science research.
At Present the UK is a haven for sensible biotech research, with many US
researchers coming over from JesusLand to get away from Chimpy's
anti-science administration. Watch how long that lasts if the usual suspects
are allowed to influence government priorities in science research.
I.
2666
oeditor
Re: Heads up...
11/09/2006 13:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5325190.stm
>
> I would suggest having a formal position on this - you can bet your
> ass that > each and every religion with an axe to grind will be
using >these events to > try to influence science research.
>
This could be anything or nothing, depending what they make of it. It
seems to be just one project funded by "Sciencewise", a government
fund. There's virtually nothing on the web yet, except:
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/fas/graphicscience/ (about 1/3 down).
They're looking at possible science developments predicted by "horizon
scanning" - a new buzz term, by the look of it: everybody's using it.
There are three main variables:
1) what they ask - could be contentious?
2) who they ask - could let the loonies in?
3) what notice is taken of their findings - cherie-picking by Blair
(or whoever takes over) to favour religions?
Brian
2667
oeditor
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
11/09/2006 16:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
> "Although I have said Muslims must embrace scientific findings,
> these findings will still be subject to scrutiny under the light of
> the teachings of the Koran. That is exactly why Darwin's theory of
> Evolution, suggesting the human being started as something very
> different, is not acceptable."
This is an interesting difference from the Christian fundies, if
ending up with the samre result. Muslims subject science to filtration
through the Koran and leave some behind. Christian fundies force
science through the sieve of Genesis and it comes out all mangled.
However, most Muslims will take the Koran literally without being
specialised fundies, while only a few Christians will take Genesis
literally. There's also the problem that there is no separation of
Islam the religion and Islam the ruler of lives, so the moment Muslim
authorities sit up and take notice, they'll try to throw evolution out
of the window.
Brian
2668
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
11/09/2006 17:31:00
On 11 sep 2006, at 17:58, oeditor wrote:
> There's also the problem that there is no separation of
> Islam the religion and Islam the ruler of lives,
This is very true. One moment it is a religious belief, the next moment
it is a "culture" or "way of life", the next it is a perfectly good
excuse to beat up your wife, and finally it becomes a justification for
stoning, beheading, shooting or nuking everybody you don't like. Islam
(there is no "moderate", "tolerant" or "modern" version, by definition)
is early medieval barbarism set in concrete.
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2669
findingfossils
Re: SIMPSONS 18:30 EVOLUTION EPISODE
11/09/2006 17:39:00
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of oeditor
> Sent: 10 September 2006 18:19
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BlackShadow] SIMPSONS 18:30 EVOLUTION EPISODE
>
> On any minute!
> Lisa gets in trouble over school's ruling on evolution.
> Brian
Sigh, the one Simpsons episode I want to see and I am ill in bed and
sleep through it. Never mind, no doubt it will be repeated :)
H
2670
findingfossils
Re: Pupil sent home in haircut row
11/09/2006 17:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> >
> > Emma Dunlop
> >
> > A TEENAGE boy has been banned from a controversial Christian-led
> city
> > academy in Yorkshire because he had the wrong haircut.
> >
> > http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
> SectionID=1084&Arti
> > cleID=1753118
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/fhgml
> >
> > Lee Kilgour, 14, had a "back and sides" cut for his return to the
> > Vardy Foundation's Trinity Academy in Thorne, Doncaster. But he was
> > sent home because it fell foul of school regulations.
>
> Jeez, imagine the average employer doing this to staff! It would be
> out of staff and out of business in no time at all.
'But what makes it worse is that there are lots of other boys at the
school with the same haircut'
So why were all the other boys not dealt with in the same manner?
2671
bonytrux
Trinity Haircut update
11/09/2006 21:23:00
Lee Kilgour and parents tried to meet Ian Brew, Principal of Trinity
Academy to discuss the 'haircut' this afternoon. They took Doncaster
Councillor Martin Williams with them. Brew refused to see them .
They were fobbed off with two vice-principals. The two vice-
principals refused to meet with the local councillor present - he
had gone to advise the parents and support them. The councillor
was 'excluded' and the parents got no change.
Dept. for Education and Skills (DfES) guidance (amended 2006) states
that academies must have exclusion policies consistent with DfES
guidelines. The guidelines state
Section 21 - exclusion should NOT be used for breach of rules on
hairstyle
Section 22 - you cannot send a pupil home without officially
excluding him - an informal or unofficial exclusion is ILLEGAL
Therefore Trinity has sent a pupil home for a reason which the DfES
does not accept. Furthermore Trinity has acted ILLEGALLY because
they have not officially excluded Lee - they will not give his
parents an exclusion letter stating reason for exclusion and length
of exclusion.
Who is in control of this crazy situation ? - in an LEA school the
LEA would sort out a head who breaks the rules. Who sorts out Brew
and Trinity Academy ?
2672
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
11/09/2006 21:32:00
On 11/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
> ...
> However, most Muslims will take the Koran literally without being
> specialised fundies, while only a few Christians will take Genesis
> literally. There's also the problem that there is no separation of
> Islam the religion and Islam the ruler of lives...
This isn't true in modern-day Turkey and, despite the existence of a
minority of violent extremists and the differences between the more
cosmopolitan urban centers and the more traditional rural areas, this
isn't true in Pakistan, either.
Let's focus on Pakistan for the time being...
Jinnah, the "founding father" of Pakistan, had what was essentially a
secular vision of how Pakistan ought to be - a haven for people of
differing religious beliefs, but this vision became corrupted by later
politicians:
"Although the founding father of the nation, Mr Jinnah, pointed us in
an unambiguously secular, progressive direction, he died too early to
transform this vision into reality. His successors were too weak to
pursue it effectively, and allowed this concept to be subverted to the
point where it is but a distant memory. Whereas Mr Jinnah saw Pakistan
as a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent where the minorities
would be equal citizens, obscurantists and self-serving politicians
hijacked this vision and transfigured our country into a cockpit of
warring religious militias and a haven for terrorists."
The armies of the night
By Irfan Husain
Dawn 12 Feb 2000
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20000212.htm
The corruption of Jinnah's vision was not due to the ignorance of
Pakistani voters, but due to its gradual corruption by various
politicians, with more blame lying with a charismatic dictator by the
name of Zia than anyone else:
"Given the good sense displayed by Pakistani voters in election after
election, the extremist tilt in our politics becomes harder to
explain. Clearly, unlike the Iranian revolution, religious parties
command no huge following of the faithful marching in the streets,
calling for the imposition of a theocratic order. The reality is that
a number of sects and leaders are vying to impose their versions of
Islam on the national polity, and this multiplicity erodes their
appeal and credibility.
"So while there has been no dramatic revolutionary movement to bring
in the Shariat, what we have witnessed is the gradual, piece-meal
reduction in the space for secularism. General Zia-ul- Haq, undisputed
military dictator of Pakistan for eleven years, did more than anyone
else to push us backwards."
(ibid.)
More recently, Pervez Musharraf has argued for democratic reforms
(albeit with a measure of inconsistency) and expended some effort at
containing the religious extremists, and while one may argue that he
has been easier on the extremists which threaten national as well as
international interests, one must acknowledge that he has opposed them
at considerable personal risk - with two relatively recent attempts
made upon his life within the span of a single year.
2673
oeditor
Ratzinger: here we go again.
11/09/2006 21:57:00
"Faith above science will address ills - pope
Independent Online - 6 hours ago
Munich - Pope Benedict XVI has rebuked Western societies for often
shutting their ears to the Christian message, insisting that science
and technology alone cannot combat Aids and other social ills."
Garlic is much better.
http://tinyurl.com/jc4u6
Dunno why thats a South African report, not the Indy as Google News says.
"Munich - Pope Benedict XVI has rebuked Western societies for often
shutting their ears to the Christian message, insisting that science
and technology alone cannot combat Aids and other social ills.
Addressing 250 000 pilgrims at an open air mass in Munich on Sunday,
Benedict said modern people suffered from "hardness of hearing" when
it came to God.
It was the second day of a six-day pilgrimage to his Bavarian homeland.
Benedict said faith had to come first before progress could be made on
problems such as HIV and Aids in Africa.
"Hearts must be converted if progress is to be made on social issues
and reconciliation is to begin," Benedict said.
"People in Asia and Africa admire our scientific and technical
progress, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of
rationality which totally excludes God from man's vision, as if this
were the highest form of reason," said Benedict. - Sapa-AP
o This article was originally published on page 8 of Cape
Argus on September 11, 2006"
(I think this is anti-science and so on-topic.)
Brian
2674
oeditor
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
11/09/2006 22:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> On 11/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > However, most Muslims will take the Koran literally without being
> > specialised fundies, while only a few Christians will take Genesis
> > literally. There's also the problem that there is no separation of
> > Islam the religion and Islam the ruler of lives...
>
> This isn't true in modern-day Turkey and, despite the existence of a
> minority of violent extremists and the differences between the more
> cosmopolitan urban centers and the more traditional rural areas,
this > isn't true in Pakistan, either.
>
I was putting forward a description of Islam as I understand Muslims
in general see it. Ataturk tried to subdue Islamism in Turkey, but his
reforms are slowly being wound back. Pakistan is seething with
Islamists - I'm sure they'd dispute Musharraf's interpretation of
Islam. I don't suppose we know either individual's views on evolution,
or concern with it.
However, I think Roger might regard this as getting off-topic.
Brian
2675
Roger Stanyard
Re: Trinity Haircut update
11/09/2006 22:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "bonytrux" <bonytrux@...> wrote:
>
> Lee Kilgour and parents tried to meet Ian Brew, Principal of Trinity
> Academy to discuss the 'haircut' this afternoon. They took Doncaster
> Councillor Martin Williams with them. Brew refused to see them .
> They were fobbed off with two vice-principals. The two vice-
> principals refused to meet with the local councillor present - he
> had gone to advise the parents and support them. The councillor
> was 'excluded' and the parents got no change.
This stinks of utter contempt for democracy and accountability.
2676
Roger Stanyard
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
11/09/2006 22:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > However, most Muslims will take the Koran literally without
being
> > > specialised fundies, while only a few Christians will take
Genesis
> > > literally. There's also the problem that there is no separation
of
> > > Islam the religion and Islam the ruler of lives...
> >
> > This isn't true in modern-day Turkey and, despite the existence
of a
> > minority of violent extremists and the differences between the
more
> > cosmopolitan urban centers and the more traditional rural areas,
> this > isn't true in Pakistan, either.
> >
> I was putting forward a description of Islam as I understand Muslims
> in general see it. Ataturk tried to subdue Islamism in Turkey, but
his
> reforms are slowly being wound back. Pakistan is seething with
> Islamists - I'm sure they'd dispute Musharraf's interpretation of
> Islam. I don't suppose we know either individual's views on
evolution,
> or concern with it.
>
> However, I think Roger might regard this as getting off-topic.
>
> Brian
Seriously on topic. This is something we have to get a grip on and we
can't look to the Americans for help. Tim has given us a guide but we
are way out of our depth in getting an understanding of the real
issues.
The only thing about this that I ask people in this group to remember
is that there are a lot of very clever and likeable Muslims around. I
would like them in this group.
>
2677
Roger Stanyard
New Member
11/09/2006 22:50:00
Thomas Covenant, who runs the CED Yahoo Group has just joined us.
He is one of the good guys (not least because he puts up with me).
Welcome Thomas.
Roger
2678
oeditor
Re: New Member
11/09/2006 23:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Thomas Covenant, who runs the CED Yahoo Group has just joined us.
>
Er... could that be a pseudonym by any chance?
Brian
who just wondered.
2679
Timothy Chase
Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
11/09/2006 23:06:00
On 11/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> "Faith above science will address ills - pope
> Independent Online - 6 hours ago
> Munich - Pope Benedict XVI has rebuked Western societies for often
> shutting their ears to the Christian message, insisting that science
> and technology alone cannot combat Aids and other social ills."
> Garlic is much better.
> http://tinyurl.com/jc4u6
> Dunno why thats a South African report, not the Indy as Google News says.
> "Munich - Pope Benedict XVI has rebuked Western societies for often
> shutting their ears to the Christian message, insisting that science
> and technology alone cannot combat Aids and other social ills.
> ...
> "People in Asia and Africa admire our scientific and technical
> progress, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of
> rationality which totally excludes God from man's vision, as if this
> were the highest form of reason," said Benedict. - Sapa-AP
...
> (I think this is anti-science and so on-topic.)
>
> Brian
I of course wouldn't even consider arguing with you as to whether this
is anti-science, and as such, whole-heartedly agree with and
appreciate your decision to bring this story to our attention and
highlight its significance. However, for my own personal
enlightenment, how were you able to decide this?
Do you see the thoughts expressed by the Pope as anti-science because
of his view that we might need something beyond science and technology
(e.g., ethics) to solve the world's problems, his view that there is a
role for religion in this, or was it somehow the organic totality of
the story?
2680
oeditor
Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
11/09/2006 23:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> The only thing about this that I ask people in this group to remember
> is that there are a lot of very clever and likeable Muslims around. I
> would like them in this group.
> >
I couldn't agree more - in principle. But how do we engage with them?
I have a muslim friend in my evening class but I wouldn't like to
raise the topic of religion for fear of offending him. Likewise my
Christian neighbours - they must have read my anti-religious letters
in the Yorkshire Post, but we never mention religion and get on well.
At the moment, Benazir Bhutto is on Newsnight and she doesn't sound to
have any answers either - things have got a lot worse since she was
young, she says. She speaks strongly in favour of freedom and the rule
of law but of course, that depends rather on the law and the law-makers.
Apologists will come up with all sorts or ...well, apologies. But I
don't see how we can get beyond the definition "religion is as
religion does". So if we see religious schools, of whatever flavour,
attacking evolution or science, we go for them. But how do we know?
I've a feeling that this is where we came in :-((
Brian
2681
John Germain
RE: New Member
12/09/2006
Ah yes, I much enjoyed his "Chronicles"..
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:50 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] New Member
Thomas Covenant, who runs the CED Yahoo Group has just joined us.
He is one of the good guys (not least because he puts up with me).
Welcome Thomas.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2682
oeditor
Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> On 11/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@...> wrote:
> >
> > "Faith above science will address ills - pope
> > Independent Online - 6 hours ago
e the highest form of reason," said Benedict. - Sapa-AP
> ...
> > (I think this is anti-science and so on-topic.)
> >
> > Brian
>
> I of course wouldn't even consider arguing with you as to whether this
> is anti-science, and as such, whole-heartedly agree with and
> appreciate your decision to bring this story to our attention and
> highlight its significance.
Oooooh, the sarcasm!
> However, for my own personal
> enlightenment, how were you able to decide this?
> Do you see the thoughts expressed by the Pope as anti-science
because > of his view that we might need something beyond science and
technology >> (e.g., ethics) to solve the world's problems, his view
that there is a >> role for religion in this, or was it somehow the
organic totality of > the story?
>
Nope. Just the little matter of his claiming that AIDS will go away if
people just stop shagging each other. Combined with his organisation's
requirement that people - well, his co-relgionists at any rate - shag
each other like crazy so they can out-breed competing religions. One
can only assume that he'd rather have a surfeit of catholics, at any
price.
That's not just anti-science, it's plain genocidal.
Do we have to go down this road?
If so, ask me again tomorrow.
Brian
2683
oeditor
Re: New Member
12/09/2006 00:12:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Covenant, who runs the CED Yahoo Group has just joined us.
> >
> Er... could that be a pseudonym by any chance?
>
Having looked at YEC, with 900 posts a week, welcome Thomas to our
Holiday Inn. How on earth (or wherever) do you do it?
Brian
2684
John Germain
RE: Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
12/09/2006 00:13:00
Isn't this the whole point? That anyone is free to believe whatever they like:
God(s) or
not? Just so long as they are happy to only discuss it when they feel it's
appropriate?
Otherwise to co-exist with those with whom they have many other things in
common, just not
that one?
When anyone is told that they MAY not discuss something, the Blue Touch-paper
has been
lit.
Any Society or subset-of-Society which enters Double-Think (as has the British
Police as a
reaction to the longstanding "Institutionalised Racism" allegations (aka
`Canteen
Culture') has dug itself a hole from which it will need a bloody big ladder to
escape.
It won't be Jacob's, either.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
oeditor
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:42 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> The only thing about this that I ask people in this group to remember
> is that there are a lot of very clever and likeable Muslims around. I
> would like them in this group.
> >
I couldn't agree more - in principle. But how do we engage with them?
I have a muslim friend in my evening class but I wouldn't like to
raise the topic of religion for fear of offending him. Likewise my
Christian neighbours - they must have read my anti-religious letters
in the Yorkshire Post, but we never mention religion and get on well.
At the moment, Benazir Bhutto is on Newsnight and she doesn't sound to
have any answers either - things have got a lot worse since she was
young, she says. She speaks strongly in favour of freedom and the rule
of law but of course, that depends rather on the law and the law-makers.
Apologists will come up with all sorts or ...well, apologies. But I
don't see how we can get beyond the definition "religion is as
religion does". So if we see religious schools, of whatever flavour,
attacking evolution or science, we go for them. But how do we know?
I've a feeling that this is where we came in :-((
Brian
Yahoo! Groups Links
2685
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006 00:35:00
On 11/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
> ...
> Nope. Just the little matter of his claiming that AIDS will go away if
> people just stop shagging each other. Combined with his organisation's
> requirement that people - well, his co-relgionists at any rate - shag
> each other like crazy so they can out-breed competing religions. One
> can only assume that he'd rather have a surfeit of catholics, at any
> price.
I believe we both personally agree that the position of the Catholic
Church is highly problematic with regard to birth control, and that
indirectly this is at least partly responsible for making things worse
on the HIV front, particularly in Africa. I also strongly suspect
that we have many other points of agreement.
Nevertheless, on the face of it, this wouldn't seem to directly
constitute a form of "anti-science," although I can see how it might
possibly be debated - but it is probably not worth debating here.
2686
Lenny Flank
RE: New Member
12/09/2006 00:47:00
> Ah yes, I much enjoyed his "Chronicles"..
>
>
"The Unbeliever".
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
2687
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Intelligent Design Shifting its Position
12/09/2006 00:50:00
> The only thing about this that I ask people in this group to remember
> is that there are a lot of very clever and likeable Muslims around. I
> would like them in this group.
Keep your eyes on the prize. There is only one question that matters
here --- do they want ID/creationist taught in schools, or don't
they.
If they do, they're the enemy, and deserve to be treated as such.
If they don't, they're friends, and deserve to be treated as such.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
2688
ukantic
Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006 11:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> On 11/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Nope. Just the little matter of his claiming that AIDS will go away if
> > people just stop shagging each other. Combined with his organisation's
> > requirement that people - well, his co-relgionists at any rate - shag
> > each other like crazy so they can out-breed competing religions. One
> > can only assume that he'd rather have a surfeit of catholics, at any
> > price.
>
> I believe we both personally agree that the position of the Catholic
> Church is highly problematic with regard to birth control, and that
> indirectly this is at least partly responsible for making things worse
> on the HIV front, particularly in Africa. I also strongly suspect
> that we have many other points of agreement.
>
> Nevertheless, on the face of it, this wouldn't seem to directly
> constitute a form of "anti-science," although I can see how it might
> possibly be debated - but it is probably not worth debating here.
>
If the scientific community unanimously & unequivocally states that
condoms protects against AIDS & helps family planning, overpopulation
etc & the Vatican opposes that opinion & resultant policies, then that
is going against the established scientific view.
If the scientific community states that stem-cell research has the
potential to save the lives or improve the quality of life of what
must be literally millions of people around the world & the Vatican
opposes or attempts to block that research, then that is also going
against the established scientific view.
Now of course there are ethical considerations to these issues (not
least why the Vatican wants people to catch AIDS or to allow people to
remain paralysed or die from horrible diseases when there is the
possibility of doing something about, etc) but when you put
superstition in opposition to science like this, then you are
practicing anti-science, even if it is limited to specific areas.
An example of what I would consider to be a genuine ethical issue
would be that of abortion. Regardless of a person's personal view on
this matter, no one can put forward a scientific argument in support
of it; on the contrary the science, with the advances in technology,
allowing premature babies to survive earlier, seems to be working the
other way. Out of interest, it was a member of the NSS, Dr. Evan
Harris MP, who recently campaigned (unsuccessfully) for a reduction in
the allowed time limit.
Alan.
2689
Marc Draco
Re: Heads up...
12/09/2006 11:56:00
The idea is right. The execution is what's wrong.
Most people aren't religious in any degree, but they're silent about it.
The deeply religous are louder than a Rolling Stones concert - so they
overwhelm the majority. Bad, bad move.
Ian Lowe wrote:
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5325190.stm
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5325190.stm>
>
> I would suggest having a formal position on this - you can bet your
> ass that
> each and every religion with an axe to grind will be using these events to
> try to influence science research.
>
> At Present the UK is a haven for sensible biotech research, with many US
> researchers coming over from JesusLand to get away from Chimpy's
> anti-science administration. Watch how long that lasts if the usual
> suspects
> are allowed to influence government priorities in science research.
>
> I.
>
>
2690
Marc Draco
Re: Trinity Haircut update
12/09/2006 12:55:00
Brew is a dickhead. Sorry, but that's the long and the short of it. He's
another little Nazi like McQuoid.
He's basically answerable to McQuoid (and ultimately Vardy) but both of
those are likely to support him. This is WHY we must stop these people
running schools. It's just not on.
bonytrux wrote:
>
> Lee Kilgour and parents tried to meet Ian Brew, Principal of Trinity
> Academy to discuss the 'haircut' this afternoon. They took Doncaster
> Councillor Martin Williams with them. Brew refused to see them .
> They were fobbed off with two vice-principals. The two vice-
> principals refused to meet with the local councillor present - he
> had gone to advise the parents and support them. The councillor
> was 'excluded' and the parents got no change.
> Dept. for Education and Skills (DfES) guidance (amended 2006) states
> that academies must have exclusion policies consistent with DfES
> guidelines. The guidelines state
> Section 21 - exclusion should NOT be used for breach of rules on
> hairstyle
> Section 22 - you cannot send a pupil home without officially
> excluding him - an informal or unofficial exclusion is ILLEGAL
> Therefore Trinity has sent a pupil home for a reason which the DfES
> does not accept. Furthermore Trinity has acted ILLEGALLY because
> they have not officially excluded Lee - they will not give his
> parents an exclusion letter stating reason for exclusion and length
> of exclusion.
> Who is in control of this crazy situation ? - in an LEA school the
> LEA would sort out a head who breaks the rules. Who sorts out Brew
> and Trinity Academy ?
>
>
2691
Roger Stanyard
Re: Trinity Haircut update
12/09/2006 15:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Brew is a dickhead. Sorry, but that's the long and the short of it.
He's
> another little Nazi like McQuoid.
>
> He's basically answerable to McQuoid (and ultimately Vardy) but both
of
> those are likely to support him. This is WHY we must stop these
people
> running schools. It's just not on.
>
If we have anything on him such as his religious views, where he came
from, etc., I can put something on our web site. This information
should be in the public domain. Any teacher who is using creationims to
tell children that science is wrong should be detailed.
2692
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006 18:13:00
On 12/09/06, ukantic <alan@blackshadow.me.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
> wrote:
> > I believe we both personally agree that the position of the Catholic
> > Church is highly problematic with regard to birth control, and that
> > indirectly this is at least partly responsible for making things worse
> > on the HIV front, particularly in Africa. I also strongly suspect
> > that we have many other points of agreement.
> >
> > Nevertheless, on the face of it, this wouldn't seem to directly
> > constitute a form of "anti-science," although I can see how it might
> > possibly be debated - but it is probably not worth debating here.
> If the scientific community unanimously & unequivocally states that
> condoms protects against AIDS & helps family planning, overpopulation
> etc & the Vatican opposes that opinion & resultant policies, then that
> is going against the established scientific view.
The Vatican does not oppose that opinion with regard to the actual
facts or even the recognition of the problems. What they oppose are
the policies which you reasonably see following from the recognition
of the facts and the problems - given a context which you and I both
share.
Sociology and statistics are able to show that at a social level, a
policy of abstinence is ineffectual - since even those who advocate
abstinence will often act against it. This is something which both
you and I agree with. We also agree that overpopulation is a problem,
although it will be less of a problem that it was projected to be due
to the introduction of birth control in third world countries. (Back
in the eighties, I remember it being projected to level out at
approximately 15,000 million between 2050 and 2070, but now it is
projected to level out at 11,000 million.) However, while the Vatican
is undoubtedly against what we see as the consequences of simply
advocating abstinence, their primary focus is on personal choice in
accordance with a specific moral vision. We do not share that moral
vision, but this does not provide us with any basis claiming that they
are anti-science.
> If the scientific community states that stem-cell research has the
> potential to save the lives or improve the quality of life of what
> must be literally millions of people around the world & the Vatican
> opposes or attempts to block that research, then that is also going
> against the established scientific view.
It is not going against the established scientific view - insofar as
this view is strictly scientific. You and I both share certain
philosophic views from which we draw conclusions regarding the
"implications" of what has been discovered by means of science, but
these implications are as much the result of our philosophic views as
they are the result of our recognition of science. The Vatican shares
our recognition of science, but operates from the perspective of a
different philosophic view. You and I may oppose their philosophic
views or at least wish to see them amended, but it is inaccurate to
say that they do not share our scientific views or are, as the result
of a difference in philosophy, anti-science.
> Now of course there are ethical considerations to these issues (not
> least why the Vatican wants people to catch AIDS or to allow people to
> remain paralysed or die from horrible diseases when there is the
> possibility of doing something about, etc) but when you put
> superstition in opposition to science like this, then you are
> practicing anti-science, even if it is limited to specific areas.
Despite the differences in recommended policies, I strongly doubt that
those in the Vatican would wish people to catch HIV or suffer
paralysis. They would oppose the policies which we would recommend,
but not on anti-scientific grounds. It is a difference in terms of
philosophy.
> An example of what I would consider to be a genuine ethical issue
> would be that of abortion. Regardless of a person's personal view on
> this matter, no one can put forward a scientific argument in support
> of it; on the contrary the science, with the advances in technology,
> allowing premature babies to survive earlier, seems to be working the
> other way. Out of interest, it was a member of the NSS, Dr. Evan
> Harris MP, who recently campaigned (unsuccessfully) for a reduction in
> the allowed time limit.
I personally support the right to abortion. I suspect you do as well.
However, if you recognize that the Catholic Church can oppose
abortion on ethical grounds without being anti-scientific, and if you
are able to do so by distinguishing between their scientific and
philosophic views, then I find it difficult to understand what why you
do not make a similar distinction with regard to the other social
policies.
In any case, the purpose of this group is presumably to oppose the
creationists and their attempt to infiltrate the schools. Here we are
debating social policies on stem cell research and birth control. I
have difficulty seeing how such social policies and differences in
philosophic views are directly relevant to this group.
I doubt that it is within the capacity of this association to solve
the AIDS crisis, world overpopulation and poverty, or to convert
everyone to what we might regard as a strictly rational philosophy -
assuming we are able to agree amongst ourselves what that is.
However, if we are able to have a strictly delineated set of
objectives, it will be possible for us to bring more people in to
achieve those objectives, and we will stand a better chance of
achieving them. If such an effort succeeds, it may open up lines of
communication which at some later point will make it possible to make
progress on other important issues.
2693
Thomas Covenant
Re: New Member
12/09/2006 20:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> Thomas Covenant, who runs the CED Yahoo Group has just joined us.
>
> He is one of the good guys (not least because he puts up with me).
>
> Welcome Thomas.
>
> Roger
>
Thanks Roger (I think)...
You add a lot to the discussion over at CED (mostly worthwhile). And
I put up with you because you are "generally" on topic and non-
insulting to other members (most of the time, sort of, in a round-a-
bout way). :-)
Seriously, I'm looking forward to hearing what those on the "other
side of the pond" have to say about creationism/ID movements in your
countries. I've got two kids already in public school (and a third
about a year away from starting), and I live in (GASP!) Kansas. The
anti-evolution, religious right front is almost overwhelming.
I'll probably just lurk for a while, unless something in my area of
semi-expertise arises (which happens to be microbiology and
immunogenetics).
Thomas
2694
Thomas Covenant
Re: New Member
12/09/2006 20:51:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Ah yes, I much enjoyed his "Chronicles"..
> >
> >
>
>
> "The Unbeliever".
>
>
<BG>
That would be me. Of course, some parts of the book are fictional -- I
don't have leprosy, for example.
You can all just call me Thomas. Ur-Lord is so pretentious, and white
gold just doesn't work here like it does in the Land. :-)
2695
ukantic
Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006 21:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> On 12/09/06, ukantic <alan@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
> The Vatican does not oppose that opinion with regard to the actual
> facts or even the recognition of the problems. What they oppose are
> the policies which you reasonably see following from the recognition
> of the facts and the problems - given a context which you and I both
> share.
>
> Sociology and statistics are able to show that at a social level, a
> policy of abstinence is ineffectual - since even those who advocate
> abstinence will often act against it. This is something which both
> you and I agree with. We also agree that overpopulation is a problem,
> although it will be less of a problem that it was projected to be due
> to the introduction of birth control in third world countries. (Back
> in the eighties, I remember it being projected to level out at
> approximately 15,000 million between 2050 and 2070, but now it is
> projected to level out at 11,000 million.) However, while the Vatican
> is undoubtedly against what we see as the consequences of simply
> advocating abstinence, their primary focus is on personal choice in
> accordance with a specific moral vision. We do not share that moral
> vision, but this does not provide us with any basis claiming that they
> are anti-science.
We all have moral standards, which can vary widely; however, as long
as they act within the law, a person's standards are their own
personal matter. They have nothing to do with the Catholic Church &
their views on morality. I did not vote for the Catholic Church last
time, nor did anyone else here. Their moral views are irrelevant & do
not change the fact that they are ignoring or opposing scientific
advice on the issue of AIDS prevention, contraception or stem-cell
research. This of course makes them vulnerable to the charge of being
anti-science.
> I personally support the right to abortion. I suspect you do as well.
I think practical considerations make it necessary, but it is not
something I get carried away in my support for.
> However, if you recognize that the Catholic Church can oppose
> abortion on ethical grounds without being anti-scientific, and if you
> are able to do so by distinguishing between their scientific and
> philosophic views, then I find it difficult to understand what why you
> do not make a similar distinction with regard to the other social
> policies.
For a start the Catholic Church is not a purely ethical organisation;
it is a religious body whose perception of the world is framed in
terms of it religious belief. What it calls morality (especially its
views on homosexuality) & ethics are not what many people in a secular
society necessarily call morality & ethics. That of coarse that does
not mean that they cannot coincide at some points, & I attempted to
highlight one with the abortion issue where they could in theory turn
the tables on their opponents & accuse them of ignoring (some)
scientific opinion.
> In any case, the purpose of this group is presumably to oppose the
> creationists and their attempt to infiltrate the schools. Here we are
> debating social policies on stem cell research and birth control. I
> have difficulty seeing how such social policies and differences in
> philosophic views are directly relevant to this group.
>
Agreed. The CC may not be opposing establish scientific theories, but
they are nevertheless, in specific areas, opposing the will of the
scientific community. Whether you want to label this activity as
anti-science or not probably isn't worth arguing about.
Alan.
2696
ukantic
Re: Trinity Haircut update
12/09/2006 22:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Brew is a dickhead. Sorry, but that's the long and the short of it.
> He's
> > another little Nazi like McQuoid.
> >
> > He's basically answerable to McQuoid (and ultimately Vardy) but both
> of
> > those are likely to support him. This is WHY we must stop these
> people
> > running schools. It's just not on.
> >
> If we have anything on him such as his religious views, where he came
> from, etc., I can put something on our web site. This information
> should be in the public domain. Any teacher who is using creationims to
> tell children that science is wrong should be detailed.
>
The TES has labelled him as a creationist in the past. See:
http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2056951
I investigated that claim then & come up with this:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://message/54
Alan
2697
oeditor
Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006 22:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
> However, while the Vatican
> is undoubtedly against what we see as the consequences of simply
> advocating abstinence, their primary focus is on personal choice in
> accordance with a specific moral vision. We do not share that moral
> vision, but this does not provide us with any basis claiming that
they > are anti-science.
>
Oh dear, what have I started? I hoped this would all die down.
However, since you ask, the Vatican doesn't give a toss about moral
visions - only those coinciding with their doctrine are valic. For the
rest, recant or burn.
As to the original topic, I quoted a report on Ratzinger's proclamation:
"Benedict said faith had to come first before progress could be made
on problems such as HIV and Aids in Africa."
Which, in any context other than religious, is utter bunkum. If
Ratzinger claims that science-based medicine is unable to work without
the prior approval of priests, then I have no hesitation in saying
that he is adopting an anti-science stance.
> The Vatican shares
> our recognition of science, but operates from the perspective of a
> different philosophic view. You and I may oppose their philosophic
> views or at least wish to see them amended, but it is inaccurate to
> say that they do not share our scientific views or are, as the >
>result > of a difference in philosophy, anti-science.
I disagree. They may be aware of the findings of science, but they
reject them if they don't fit with their religious beliefs. Not just
imaginary permeability of condoms - that's just for the foot soliders
- but their concern with souls. Never proven, and not even the
slightest suggestion that identical twins have only one soul between
them, but their anti-abortion and anti-cloning stances are based on
these imaginary entities.
Face up to it: they have their preconceptions and they're against
anything that doesn't fit with them.
> Despite the differences in recommended policies, I strongly doubt that
> those in the Vatican would wish people to catch HIV or suffer
> paralysis. They would oppose the policies which we would recommend,
> but not on anti-scientific grounds.
Ah, we may have a small semantic problem here. I'm not suggesting that
the Vatican disputes the findings of science - they have, after all,
an astromomer (or did, until Ratzinger sacked him) but they say that
such findings are wrong or can be invalidated by the greater truth of
of their religious beliefs.
> In any case, the purpose of this group is presumably to oppose the
> creationists and their attempt to infiltrate the schools. Here we
>are > debating social policies on stem cell research and birth
>control. I have difficulty seeing how such social policies and
differences in > philosophic views are directly relevant to this group.
>
I might have started this discussion by saying that Ratzinger's
attitudes are anti-scientific, but you're the one who made an issue of
it. If Ratzinger is dismissing scientific medicine, he is paving the
way for the creationist nay-sayers.
> I doubt that it is within the capacity of this association to solve
> the AIDS crisis, world overpopulation and poverty,
No. But it's a pity that powerful organisations, which might be able
to help do that, perversely point their efforts in the opposite direction.
Enough yet?
Brian
2698
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006 22:29:00
On 12/09/06, ukantic <alan@blackshadow.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
> We all have moral standards, which can vary widely; however, as long
> as they act within the law, a person's standards are their own
> personal matter. They have nothing to do with the Catholic Church &
> their views on morality. I did not vote for the Catholic Church last
> time, nor did anyone else here. Their moral views are irrelevant & do
> not change the fact that they are ignoring or opposing scientific
> advice on the issue of AIDS prevention, contraception or stem-cell
> research. This of course makes them vulnerable to the charge of being
> anti-science.
Science does not dispense advice. Science makes discoveries and
science identifies causal relationships. Likewise, it can identify
the likely consequences of enacting a given policy - as in economics.
But economics does not recommend avoiding hyperinflation. It does not
recommend the avoidance of price controls or tariffs. It simply
identifies the likely consequences of such policies. Likewise,
climatology does not recommend that we abandon the use of fossil fuels
or even avoid a spiraling greenhouse effect which may follow from
various positive feedback loops - it simply identifies the greenhouse
effect as a consequence of our continued use of fossil fuels.
The Catholic Church does not ignore or oppose "scientific advice," but
rather the conclusions which you or others wish to draw from
scientific discoveries and scientific knowledge, but which do not
necessarily follow from those scientific discoveries themselves.
Conflating normative judgments with their basis in science does not
make them scientific.
Assuming you will grant that science is empirical, then I would assume
that you will grant that scientific knowledge is testable. But if
scientific knowledge is testable, can it involve any moral judgments?
Value judgments? Recommended policies? How, exactly, would you test
a given value judgment?
I assume you heard of Hume's Is/Ought problem in Philosophy 101. The
only way to derive a value judgment ("ought") from a given fact ("is")
is by reference to another value judgment which likewise cannot be
strictly derived from any strictly factual (or for that matter,
empirical or scientific) set of statements. No doubt an infinite
regress can and should be avoided, but it cannot be avoided strictly
by reference to empirical science.
> > I personally support the right to abortion. I suspect you do as well.
>
> I think practical considerations make it necessary, but it is not
> something I get carried away in my support for.
It is something I am fairly passionate about, but not in this context.
> > However, if you recognize that the Catholic Church can oppose
> > abortion on ethical grounds without being anti-scientific, and if you
> > are able to do so by distinguishing between their scientific and
> > philosophic views, then I find it difficult to understand what why you
> > do not make a similar distinction with regard to the other social
> > policies.
> For a start the Catholic Church is not a purely ethical organisation;
> it is a religious body whose perception of the world is framed in
> terms of it religious belief. What it calls morality (especially its
> views on homosexuality) & ethics are not what many people in a secular
> society necessarily call morality & ethics. That of coarse that does
> not mean that they cannot coincide at some points, & I attempted to
> highlight one with the abortion issue where they could in theory turn
> the tables on their opponents & accuse them of ignoring (some)
> scientific opinion.
Quite right, of course: the Catholic Church is a religious
organisation. I suppose it would do us well never to forget this, no
matter how easily it might slip our minds.
Seriously, what the Catholic Church calls morality no doubt differs
from what many in secular society might call morality, but then again,
there are a great many differences between what different members of
secular society might call morality, so I fail to see why this is
important.
> > In any case, the purpose of this group is presumably to oppose the
> > creationists and their attempt to infiltrate the schools. Here we are
> > debating social policies on stem cell research and birth control. I
> > have difficulty seeing how such social policies and differences in
> > philosophic views are directly relevant to this group.
> Agreed. The CC may not be opposing establish scientific theories, but
> they are nevertheless, in specific areas, opposing the will of the
> scientific community. Whether you want to label this activity as
> anti-science or not probably isn't worth arguing about.
They are opposing the will of the scientific community only insofar as
the scientific community is no longer acting as a purely scientific
community. But if this is the case, then it is the scientific
community which is debasing science, not the Catholic Church.
In any case, I would agree that this is not worth debating - assuming
we are ever able to move on to other things - such as the specific
objectives of this organisation. There are many forums for endlessly
debating the merits of religion, but I believe this forum has more
practical goals to attend to.
2699
oeditor
Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006 23:08:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
>> In any case, I would agree that this is not worth debating - assuming
> we are ever able to move on to other things - such as the specific
> objectives of this organisation. There are many forums for endlessly
> debating the merits of religion, but I believe this forum has more
> practical goals to attend to.
>
Pity, then, that you've made such a mountain of my original molehill.
Can't a bloke have a quick snipe at a figurehead? I thought that's
what they were there for.
Enough?
Brian
2700
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Ratzinger: here we go again.
12/09/2006 23:34:00
> We all have moral standards
Not me. I'll do anything. Particularly after a few beers. :>
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html