Troglodytes alive in Alabama.

Post #17,691 by a6l6e6x 11/10/01 5:11:44 PM Reply	Troglodytes alive in Alabama. Well, almost. MONTGOMERY, Ala., Nov. 9 -- Alabama is maintaining its distinction as the only state where biology textbooks include a sticker warning students that evolution is a "controversial theory" that they should question. [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/10/education/10ALAB.html\|NY Times article.] (cypherpunks6:cypherpunks6) Thank Karsten. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #17,692 by Ashton 11/10/01 5:42:06 PM Reply	S'OK Massa: I'd like to see some stickers too - On them Econ books, advising that any such course - esp. for anyone on a fast-track to an MBA: Visit the prerequisite course on Ethics 101 and pass a comprehension test on The Tyranny of Words, so as to be properly prepared for the Heavenly-$-courses. (OK OK - a few quotes from that there Bible thing too - set concordance to stun; look under greed) Mebbe them Alabamians got an idee here! -Equal Time- it's the Murican thing to do. Ashton holding breath..
Post #17,713 by tablizer 11/10/01 8:29:39 PM 11/10/01 8:35:18 PM Reply	I put one like that on my copy of Meyer's OOSC2 Does that make me a troggy? Then again what isn't contraversial to some extent? People have been fighting over who and what goes into history books forever. They should put such a sticker on just about everything if they go that route. Even math can get contraversial in what subjects to emphasize. Remember the fights over the "new math" and whether it worked or not? Warning: Thinking may cause brain cancer ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer Nov. 10, 2001, 08:35:18 PM EST Expand All History
Post #18,018 by jb4 11/13/01 8:46:41 AM Reply	Math got Gallileo[sic?] into trouble With that subversive stuff, he managed to prove that the Earth was not the center of the universe. (We now know that the Center of the Universe is John Ashhole's house...) Who knows what underhanded, underminimg things we'll be able to prove with science and/or math in the near future? (Perhaps that the "trickle-down" theory is indeed bullshit!) Getcher stickers ready! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #17,736 by static 11/11/01 5:22:21 AM Reply	Whilst it remains controversial... ... I think reminding people that it is controversial is a good thing. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #17,741 by pwhysall 11/11/01 5:40:24 AM Reply	But it's not controversial. The only controversy is that the fundies in Alabama don't want to accept it. For more info about this (links etc) go to www.talkorigins.com. Evolution happens, has been observed to happen and is not "a controversial theory" in any way other than its ability to push the buttons of religious fundamentalists. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #17,745 by static 11/11/01 6:39:55 AM Reply	Well, no it is, actually. The very existence of www.talkorigins.com et al is testament to that. The controversy and dissent just varies. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #17,750 by pwhysall 11/11/01 9:50:03 AM Reply	No it isn't. Just because there's a website dedicated to rebutting the bad science of creationists doesn't mean that the science of creationism is suddenly "good". Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #17,753 by a6l6e6x 11/11/01 11:25:47 AM Reply	Re: But it's not controversial. Slight correction: It is: [link\|http://www.talkorigins.org/\|[link\|http://www.talkorigins.org/\|http://www.talkorigins.org/]]. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #17,758 by tonytib 11/11/01 12:51:50 PM Reply	Correction: Evolution within a species has been observed to happen, and can be observed to happen by anybody if you have a rapidly reproducing organism and apply to right stimulus. Given time, you might even see this species involve into another species. However, no one has observed evolution between phyla (e.g. between reptiles and birds) -- for one, it would take way too long. So we have to rely on indirect proof, and there are legitmate disagreements about that. Just to give one example for the pro side, if Darwinian evolutionary theory is so perfect, why did Stephen Jay Gould come up with punctuated evolutionary theory? Evolutionary theory as responsible for the creation of all species is still very much a theory and should be taught as such, giving the various evolutionary theories, their evidence, and their problems. There are many legitimate questions about whether evolution is responsible for the creation of all the species and if so, exactly how. Tony Who doesn't like evolutionary fundamentalists any more than the other variety
Post #17,777 by ben_tilly 11/11/01 4:18:54 PM Reply	It is NOT controversial The fact that many people refuse to learn basic facts of biology, geology, archeology, etc does not a controversy make. Think about Bryce's arguments over OO. The fact that he argues about it obstinantly doesn't mean that there is any real controversy about what he is arguing about. This is similar. There is no serious scientific argument. And the world view the Creationists are pushing was, as I have mentioned before, discredited before Darwin when it was demonstrated that there had been no great world flood covering England in the last few thousand years, but there had been a series of Ice Ages. (This was shown about 180 years ago.) Cheers, Ben
Post #17,781 by Ashton 11/11/01 4:55:56 PM Reply	It's a M/Soft kinda thing, isn't it? In a world wherein a significant plurality of the er educated 'leaders' imagine that what M$ does, is innovate - how might we reasonably expect this rather more subtle and complex matter to be er grokked to fullness ? (Reduced expectations: is that not the means of retaining some sort of internal sanity in a world virally infected with contagious dumbth ?) I know I know.. one has to keep trying. Maybe to confirm which way the wind is blowing, still (?) Ashton Why.. 40% of the folk are said/sampled to think that, the Sun orbits the Earth - y'know? (This is not to be confused with the plan of the __s to launch a mission to the Sun. They will go at night.)
Post #17,785 by static 11/11/01 5:59:10 PM Reply	And out of the woodwork they come! How can I put this? So long as evolution is presented and taught such that it says "This is how it happens, there is no room for a religious viewpoint and you're daft if you want one" - not, of course, to say that it is always presented in such ways - then there will be problems. That is why I agreed with Alabama'a stance. Peace? Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #17,790 by CRConrad 11/11/01 6:51:14 PM Reply	"Problems", sure, but that's not 'coz it's "controversial". How can I put this? Preferably not at all, because it's bullshit. So long as evolution is presented and taught such that it says "This is how it happens, there is no room for a religious viewpoint and you're daft if you want one" - not, of course, to say that it is always presented in such ways - then there will be problems. You're either confused by, or attempting to exploit the confusion caused by, the superficial commonality between "problems" and "controversy"... But that's not how it works; they're not at all the same thing. Any fucking idiot can cause "problems" over anything and nothing; for instance, a violent terrorist Flat Earth Movement could certainly cause no end of trouble in civil life in the Western world. That "problem" would still have fuck-all to do with LEGITIMATE scientific "controversy", which is fairly well understood to mean something for which there exist equally respectable and reasonable camps of legitimate scientists supporting different scientific explanations. To equate "problems" with "(scientifically) controversial" is to claim that the existence of a violent terrorist Flat Earth Movement would automagically cause to exist a respectable and reasonable camp of legitimate scientists who claim that the Earth is flat. Is that what you are trying to say? That is why I agreed with Alabama'a stance. But since that IS how it happens, there IS no "room for a religious viewpoint" in science. Even if that weren't how it happens, BTW, there'd STILL be no "room for a religious viewpoint" in science -- that would only mean that it happens some other way, that science hasn't figured out yet. That does NOT include some figment of the Jeezmoids' collective imagination having anything to do with it. So yeah, either way, you -- and Alabama -- ARE daft if you want "room for a religious viewpoint" in science. That's about as sensible as wanting "room for an ichtyological viewpoint" in, say, literary critique. Or "room for an embroidery viewpoint" in coal mining, or whatever. The whole damn realm of Religion just has NOTHING TO DO with questions of science. (And I wouldn't try to claim otherwise if I were you... I really wouldn't.) Peace?? Nope, sorry -- "No compromise with the Shadow; not on my watch!" Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #17,793 by static 11/11/01 7:04:51 PM Reply	I guess it's very POV specific. Makes it hard to agree. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #17,794 by CRConrad 11/11/01 7:13:53 PM Reply	Nope, it's quite simple, non-POV-specific, and universal: Religion has nothing to do with science. Period. That's it. And since that is a statement of fact, there's nothing to "agree" about; to "disagree" would be what is more commonly known as 'being wrong'. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #17,803 by ben_tilly 11/11/01 8:43:03 PM Reply	That is going too far First of all a thousand years ago, much of what we today consider the realm of science, was the realm of religion. A large part of the conflict between religion and science is due to the fact that religion was there first, then was displaced by growing abilities to seek scientific explanations. But the starting place for those scientific explanations was the existing religious theories. But in the 1600's in Europe a curious religious view arose. That view was that a perfect God would create a world which did not need ongoing tinkering to keep it running. With some conflicts (not everyone believed this of course), this led people to look for purely mechanistic explanations of all kinds of things. And this view was one of the things that got what we know today as science going. And then a few centuries later, a peculiar thing happened. Some people looked at all of this science, and took the fact that God was not involved as evidence that God was a superfluous theory, in fact God did not exist. There is a supreme irony here. Discoveries made by devout Christians like Isaac Newton, which were possible because of theories of how a perfect God would act, became evidence that there was no God!? However the kinds of explanations sought in science, the belief that things are explainable, etc, are themselves more than somewhat religious. And the sense that there is a perfect order to be found if we just know how to look right is a direct inheritance from the religious beliefs of early sciences. So religion and science have a lot of connections. You just need to know where to find them... Cheers, Ben
Post #17,861 by CRConrad 11/12/01 10:16:49 AM Reply	Sigh... Bend over backwards in your own posts; dont tack... ...your cringe-obatics onto mine, please. Sure, the origins of religion and science have a lot in common. (Hey, both can be said to grow straight out of the basic question "How does the world work?"). And sure, lots of scientists have been, and still are, religious people; and lots of religious people have been, and still are, scientists (because people will be people, and our prejudices are among the last things we ever want to give up). And, suuure, the "Absent Watchmaker" theory might be a way to reconcile religious sentiment and scientific observation. But, apart from that ridiculously contrived William-of-Ockham-is-choking-on-his-beard -style longshot -- which explains absolutely nothing more than the same model without the Blind Tinkerer, but exists only to preserve an otherwise-too-obviously ludicrous superstition -- the content of the religious cosmological model has absolutely fuck-all to do with the content of current scientific theory and observations. Which, for reasons that are hopefully obvious when you read the preceding monstrum of a sentence, is expressed as "religion has nothing to do with science" in the common vernacular. (One would have thought most people could grasp that simplification pretty much immediately, and wouldn't have to go off on tangents about the origin of philosophical speculation...) So please, Ben, let my posts stand as the statements of general principle they're intended as, OK? You can bend over backwards to appease the Jeezmoids in threads of your own, or in replies direct to them. The Tillster: And then a few centuries later, a peculiar thing happened. Some people looked at all of this science, and took the fact that God was not involved as evidence that God was a superfluous theory, in fact God did not exist. Yeah, 'xackly... But what's so "peculiar" about that?!? Perfectly valid scientific reasoning, isn't it? There is a supreme irony here. Discoveries made by devout Christians like Isaac Newton, which were possible because of theories of how a perfect God would act, became evidence that there was no God!? Yup. Life (and history) is ironic, sometimes. So what? (Just look whom you're talking to: "Christian" -- Ha!) R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #17,953 by ben_tilly 11/12/01 7:11:11 PM Reply	Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder A common intellectual trap is to confuse that which we happen to believe with the epitome of logic and reasonableness. When it comes to religion, all sides tend to do that. Here are a series of sayings, going from ones we agree on to ones we are likely to differ on sharply. The cosmology laid out by fundamentalist Christianity is discredited by science, and is completely unconnected in content. Many scientists, both past and present, have been strongly motivated by their religious beliefs. When you add in scientists with quasi-religious beliefs (for instance beliefs that many physicists hold about the existence of a GUT), this number goes up sharply. Science's foundation was made possible by a number of religious and quasi-religious beliefs. There are areas of the human experience, starting with the question of how conciousness works, which are unaddressed by science and which are probably unaddressable by science. (Note, science can address questions about what a person will do, what they will report, etc. I don't believe it can ever address the feeling that you exist.) There are many religious people who believe that the sense of self arises from having a soul granted by God. If you believe this, then God is not a superfluous assumption. Atheism is not a logical consequence of science and the scientific method. Science may lead us to reject a variety of religious beliefs. But it does not address several questions which are central to science. Now as I say, I think you are likely to disagree with my final statements. But before you proceed to lecture and disagree, I should point out that I have a pretty decent handle on how science works. The position that I have laid out above is one that I have actually thought about quite a bit, and it is what I have concluded despite the fact that the conclusion runs counter to my own gut beliefs. (I am, after all, an atheist.) Fire away if you wish. But I think I will let this thread sit with this post. I don't really have any new points that I can think of to make on this topic... Cheers, Ben
Post #17,990 by Brandioch 11/12/01 11:18:11 PM Reply	My take. #1. Science cannot disprove the existance of any god. #2. Science cannot prove the existance of any god. This is because science is only capable of measuring reproducable phenomena. !BUT! Science can show that certain events could not have happened without divine interference. Such as the world wide flood of the Bible. Which is the point I usually diverge from the religious ones. Anything can be claimed, with divine intervention. At which point, I don't see the sense of discussing "science" with them.
Post #17,909 by tablizer 11/12/01 1:44:43 PM Reply	Creation as a scientific theory I think that "intelligent creation" could be considered a "scientific theory". It is certainly a possibility that has not been completely ruled out. However, the scientific evidence for it is not very strong. If you put the "weaker condenders" in one part of the text book, then you have to be fair to put them in ALL parts of the book, otherwise it would be pandering to religion, which is against the consitution. Filling all portions with "weaker contenders" would make for a confusing textbook. BTW, how do creationists justify foot bones in wales? One theory is "software reuse". However, that would imply that God did not have enuf time to "do it right" and had to take shortcuts. "Whales still have DOS code in them". ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #17,919 by Silverlock 11/12/01 2:42:37 PM Reply	But how does the Great Turtle move? Oh, that's right. Creation "science" is only scientific if it's christian. Personally, I like the Norse explanation. "Ymir slept, falling into a sweat. Under his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres." Much more entertaining than "Let there be light." -------------------------- How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #17,939 by Brandioch 11/12/01 4:57:28 PM Reply	Waiting for Val. Did I mention that Valhalla sounds so much more fun than Heaven or Hell?
Post #17,971 by bepatient 11/12/01 8:34:38 PM Reply	In the beginning, there was this turtle... ...and he was big...and he had 2 balls...one was the sun...the other the moon... Could Mr Ah-Clem please report to the hospitatlity shelter...thank you! Dr. Memory... Back to the shadows again! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #17,972 by bepatient 11/12/01 8:34:52 PM 11/12/01 11:05:00 PM Reply	Or was it.. a catfish? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Nov. 12, 2001, 11:03:20 PM EST Edited by bepatient Nov. 12, 2001, 11:05:00 PM EST Expand All History
Post #18,020 by jb4 11/13/01 8:57:08 AM Reply	I was hoping there was at least... ...one other refugee from the 70's still alive on this forum. jb4 (I just fade my voice like this and cue the organist....)
Post #18,064 by bepatient 11/13/01 12:18:17 PM Reply	Check your PBS listings for end November, early December ...for there will be a special unlike any other... The Doctor is in! ==== Ok...back to playing with my anxious android, Chucko... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #18,072 by jb4 11/13/01 1:44:28 PM Reply	WWWWWOOOOWWWWW!! I'll keep my eyes peeled...And lemme know if you see it first (I'll do the same...) jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #18,088 by bepatient 11/13/01 2:56:52 PM 11/13/01 2:58:29 PM Reply	I already have it programmed to tape :-) And several strategically placed reminders (with alarms on) to remind me to have a blank in the machine :-) PS: The special is 90 minutes...but Philly has a live 90 minute lead in...so its 3 hours total... Thats shoes for industry for ya! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Nov. 13, 2001, 02:58:29 PM EST Expand All History
Post #18,145 by Ashton 11/13/01 6:28:17 PM Reply	If ya think of it BeeP, please give a shout later.. What with reduced attention span and all, and creeping NewsFlash paralysis and everything on our minds.. and the Betles breaking up and What was I talking about? Damn..
Post #18,223 by bepatient 11/14/01 9:40:47 AM Reply	I shall try to remember... ...thats it! Dr. Memory! Well its the bees and spiders again... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #18,228 by CRConrad 11/14/01 9:56:57 AM Reply	"Deep in December, it's nice to remember..." [link\|http://w1.871.telia.com/~u87125666/lyrics/try2rem.htm\|"...The fire of September"]? Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #18,323 by Ashton 11/14/01 6:25:06 PM Reply	Damn CRC.. Your wacko associative nexus appears to be wired almost as randomly as mine .. poor baby. Ah.. fond memories from days of innocence - All I Want for Christmas is bin-Laden's Teeth I Saw Mommy Dissing Santa's Claws (why did he take off his suit, though?) Chess Nuts Roasting on an Open Pyre ..and of course the song written for epicurean motorcyclists, Me and My Shadow Ok OK - I'll go
Post #18,329 by Meerkat 11/14/01 7:01:17 PM Reply	Afghan Hell, Afghan Hell, Bombing all the way... O what fun, it is to drive, the Taleban away, Hey! Oh dear. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #18,434 by jb4 11/15/01 2:08:16 PM Reply	So.......when is it??? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #18,438 by bepatient 11/15/01 2:34:21 PM Reply	Oh...alright... [link\|http://www.firesigntheater.com/weirdly/cities.html\|Find the listing here for a city near you]. Dr. Memory? Close B clothes mode! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #18,469 by jb4 11/15/01 6:43:36 PM Reply	Thank you...So marked! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #17,979 by ben_tilly 11/12/01 9:10:55 PM Reply	The Turtle Moves! A central saying in Terry Pratchett's hilarious book, Small Gods. Cheers, Ben
Post #18,019 by jb4 11/13/01 8:52:34 AM Reply	I dunno, Sir Cyclic... ...coal mining might well profit from an embroidery viewpoint. ROFL! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #18,085 by Ashton 11/13/01 2:43:59 PM Reply	I can see you didn't see: "Brassed Off" !! (ie: wrong!) Superb band playing, sometimes virtuosic instrument playing.. appears to go Very well with coal mining: See [any refs to] UK Colliery Bands, an ongoing tradition. We also had such traditions at turn of century - genuine American music (a well as all other sources) played by amateurs* of varying talents, some of whom became as 'professional' as any (Herbert L. Clarke, Arthur Pryor et al) and as 'immortal'. * amateurs do it for love! surely a superior mtoivation to (any doing it for just..) money (?) So 'embroidery' IS practised by colliers / miners only.. it is the embroidery of an oiginal cadenza, in a solo ! :-\ufffd Ashton PS - yes we still have HS marching bands and {ugh} the inevitable 'competitions': inevitably a speed contest, with accent upon doing tricks, acrobatics while 'playing' (!) garish uniforms and .. sports-grade tunes. We no longer have anywhere (AFAIK) anything remotely resembling the UK's Colliery Bands, or remains of our last-century tradition: where (yes they do march at times) mostly the emphasis is upon musicianship and a wide range of actual music performance - not just 'marches'.
Post #17,804 by ben_tilly 11/11/01 9:04:38 PM Reply	Better asked, how can I put this? Wade. You have a religious belief in things which are, given the physical evidence, very silly. It is a disservice for anyone who wants to learn science for them to be taught otherwise. Let me give you a simple example. Ice lays down layers, one per year, in a similar manner to tree rings. This process is known, understood, and has been measured. Well we have gone out to Greenland and Antarctica and drilled cores that go back several hundred thousand years. Uninterrupted by anything like the world flood you believe in. If you want you can just count layers. (The actual reason for getting the cores is to study climates past.) There is something ridiculous about having Creationists arguing that the world is less than 10,000 years old, and trying to explain away these ice cores, while the scientific community is doing things like verifying the predicted change in the ratio of days to months a billion years ago (verifiable through patterns of sediment laid down in tides) and figuring out what reactions inside of stars resulted in the exact ratios of elements and isotopes of elements that we see around us. (BTW elements past iron are only produced in supernovas.) But the fact is that the theories of literal creationists are disproven, not part of science, contribute nothing to science, and teaching anything else is teaching people to lack the foundation they need to understand science. Sorry, there is no half-way position here. Asking for any kind of "compromise" is asking for teachers to lie about the scientific enterprise. Ben
Post #17,808 by boxley 11/11/01 9:47:44 PM Reply	Well there is a way for the earth to be new and old at the same time. The bible also speaks of the little item that there is nothing new under the sun. This just might be the latest release. Man 25.6p14. Me I kindas think a statement you made earlier is relevent. God made the world so it wouldnt need tinkering(I am aware that you were explaining others ideas, not your own.)evolution would be proof of a very smart omnipotent being chating a course from a few data collection points to an AI organism run by electrolyes. my 2 pence. thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #17,815 by ben_tilly 11/11/01 11:05:51 PM Reply	Every new toy is made out of old stuff. :-) Very literally. As for your comment about the possibility of evolution being the method that God uses, several major religions have settled on an official resolution that is something like that. Evolution as a mechanism, with appropriate divine nudges, and a divine origin for the soul. Cheers, Ben
Post #17,833 by a6l6e6x 11/12/01 5:43:10 AM Reply	Somewhat OT: world flood This past week there was a National Geographic show on PBS (so it must be true :)) about what is now the Black Sea and how it was once a much smaller fresh water lake that was rapidly flooded from the Med around 5500 BC. It is thought likely to be the cataclysmic event that has been passed down to us as Noah's flood. [link\|http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2000/12/122800blacksea.html\|National Geographic link.] Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #17,838 by ben_tilly 11/12/01 6:24:38 AM Reply	There are no shortage of candidates... for a local flood that could give rise to stories of the Great Flood. The flooding of the Black Sea. The eruption of Thera. There is even evidence of an asteroid impact crater. Plenty of devout Christians I have known believe that the Old Testament is a humanly recorded history of a people who had encounters with the Divine. There is no conflict between believing that the history created and maintained by people is fallible, and believing that it documents extraordinary events. And as soon as you open the door for this belief, you open up all sorts of possible reconciliations between science and the Bible. A particularly commonly cited one being that a local flood could give rise to the story of Noah's Ark. Of course as soon as you think that the record is fallible, there are all sorts of difficult questions about what in particular is likely to be wrong. Fundamentalists generally don't like questions like these. It is far more convenient to just have the Revealed Truth which you can use to club backsliders and atheists with... Cheers, Ben
Post #17,957 by static 11/12/01 7:38:10 PM Reply	You're arguing the wrong point. You're putting forward the view that there is no evidence of a supernatural being having created this universe nor of one contributing to this life. I beg to differ on the latter: I have had personal experiences with such. All I was posting that I disagreed with some of the conclusions that evolutionary teaching arrives at: specifically the conclusion that there could not possibly be a God. I was merely agreeing that some authorities in Alabama also thought the same way. I had no intention of disputing the science either for or against evolution and am not impressed you and others are resurrecting this. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #17,962 by ben_tilly 11/12/01 8:05:18 PM Reply	Some of the conclusions that what arrives at? Evolution says nothing one way or the other about whether there could possibly be a God. That is to say zero, zip, nada. Anyone who believes that it does, does not understand the theory of evolution. In fact talk.origins even has a [link\|http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\|FAQ] about this. Anyone who claims that it does either needs to learn more about evolution, or should stop trying to misrepresent science to serve their own agendas. Cheers, Ben
Post #17,966 by static 11/12/01 8:14:11 PM Reply	Yep. Precisely. In spades. Most definitely. Evolution does not preclude religious beliefs. But that does not prevent people (mis-)teaching otherwise. Are we finally on the same page? Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #17,969 by Ashton 11/12/01 8:27:33 PM Reply	"IWETHEY's Terrible Horde of Enigmatic Yammerers." Proof! below That one may have omniscience without the need for additional innovative attributes, ex-post-facto! above LRPD QED OBE CQD* * betcha don't know That one! :-)
Post #17,978 by ben_tilly 11/12/01 9:03:59 PM Reply	Quite possibly... If you understand that what people object to in Alabama's bill is the emphasis on literal Creationism, and not the question of whether evolution precludes being religious. And that is why everyone brought up the classic problems with fundamentalist Creationism. Remove Creationism from the picture, and make it clear that religious beliefs as a topic belongs outside of the teaching of how science works, and there is no conflict left. (It is as inappropriate for science to be the place to teach about religious belief as it would be to cite Bible class to predict a result in, say, Chemistry.) Cheers, Ben
Post #17,986 by static 11/12/01 10:25:53 PM Reply	Ah. Noted. Apart from the fact I got unfairly punished but not reading the original link properly. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #17,818 by Another Scott 11/12/01 12:50:06 AM Reply	Let's take a different tack... Hi Wade, While you're being gently beaten about the head on evolution :-), let's consider a different thread. Is there "controversy" about the order of creation? In [link\|http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=genesis&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english \|Genesis 1] the Bible says things were created in the following order: 1. Heavens and earth. Waters (not explicitly created). 2. Light. 3. Separated waters from waters (in heaven) by the Sky. 4. Land. 5. Plants. 6. Sun, Moon and stars. 7. Water creatures and birds. 8. Land creatures. 9. Man and woman. Science (and common sense) tells us that things on earth and in the universe could not have been created in this order. Does this mean that there's "controversy" about the creation of the Earth? Does this mean that people who understand that the Sun existed before plants can't believe the Bible or be religious? I don't think so. I think it's safest to use science to answer scientific questions and use religion to answer religious questions. One wouldn't ask a mathematician if one wanted to know how to write poetry. :-) I don't think the Bible says anything about Evolution myself. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #18,568 by drewk 11/16/01 1:33:17 PM Reply	Agreement from the Annals of Improbable Research EDITORIAL: Alabama Education Initiative The Alabama Board of Education has voted to keep putting stickers on biology textbooks to warn that evolution is "a controversial theory." (The board has been doing this since 1996). In our view this is commendable. It is one of the few actions any stuffy government committee has ever taken that might actually encourage students to become curious about what is in their textbooks. Our criticism -- yes, we do have one -- is that this move does not go far enough. If the Alabama Board of Education truly wants students to be aware that the subject is worth discussing, we urge them to add a second sticker, printed in bold red type, saying: WARNING: EVOLUTION INVOLVES S-E-X === Courtesy of : Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) PO Box 380853, Cambridge, MA 02238 USA 617-491-4437 FAX:617-661-0927 EDITORIAL: marca@chem2.harvard.edu SUBSCRIPTIONS: air@improbable.com WEB SITE: <[link\|http://www.improbable.com\|http://www.improbable.com]> We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #18,571 by Silverlock 11/16/01 1:57:24 PM Reply	OT for Drew Got your email and tried to reply. No luck, error says it's undeliverable. You got a secondary address I can send to? How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,573 by drewk 11/16/01 2:04:49 PM Reply	Sure drew_k [at] email4u [dotcom] or drewk98 [at] yahoo [dotcom] It could have bounced based on size. I think tyhey filter anything of 1.5 meg. Thanks We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #18,575 by Silverlock 11/16/01 2:18:59 PM Reply	Not a size problem I just sent an acknowledgement that I had received your email. Maybe my company just doesn't like email4u. Anyway, the web server with all the job listings is being physically transported right now. I'll have to wait for Monday before I can get back to the listings. How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,764 by drewk 11/19/01 11:20:22 AM Reply	It's just forwarding The 'email4u' address forwards to the 'yahoo' one anyway. Just go ahead and send it to the yahoo address. Thanks. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]

Welcome to IWETHEY!