LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

British 'Creationism' Educator Quits

Science | Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:32:21 pm PDT

The Church of England minister who suggested allowing creationism to be discussed (not taught) in British science classes has resigned, apparently at the bidding of the Royal Society.

Professor Michael Reiss has quit as director of education at the Royal Society following the controversy over his recent comments on creationism.

Last week Prof Reiss - a Church of England minister - said creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue. He was criticised by other scientists - though misquoted as saying creationism should be “taught” in science classes.

The society said some of his comments had been “open to misinterpretation”. This had damaged its reputation.

“As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education - a part-time post he held on secondment,” it said in a statement. “He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education.”

One reason why creationism is on the rise in Britain: the influx of Islamic immigrants, who join creationists in rejecting most of modern science.

One such school that teaches creationism as a science is the respected Islamic Karimia Institute in Nottingham.

“We teach what it says in the Koran, that God created Adam and Eve, and from them came the rest of humanity,” says institute director Dr Musharraf Hussain. “We do not teach that man is descended from a lower animal - we say that God created the different species on their own.”

And just as the US-based Discovery Institute has joined forces with creationists in Turkey, groups in Britain are also welcoming the anti-scientific influence of fundamentalist Islam:

This shared belief in the origins of man - and the universe - is uniting unlikely bedfellows in the anti-evolution cause.

The Rev Greg Haslam, who preaches the creationist Christian creed to his 400-strong congregation at Westminster Chapel in London, welcomes the determination of Muslims to impart a religious-based view of the world.

“Science does not have to be taught in conflict with faith or religion,” he says. “I believe the current debate over creationism versus evolution is beginning to draw more and people over to our side of the argument.

“The materialist explanation of the creation has nothing to offer - if we came from nothing and go into nothing, then that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles. Evolution is a world-view that leads to futility. It’s no wonder people are dissatisfied with it.”

Advertisement

210 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:33:04pm
2 WrathofG-d  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:35:05pm
3 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:35:39pm

The uniting of these groups is very disturbing.

4 Syrah  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:36:10pm

re: #1 buzzsawmonkey

There is no magnetic field in Mecca.

Or London, these days.

Yet they will orbit that black boxed rock in the courtyard all the same.

5 JCM  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:38:20pm
The Rev Greg Haslam, who preaches the creationist Christian creed to his 400-strong congregation at Westminster Chapel in London, welcomes the determination of Muslims to impart a religious-based view of the world.

Fool.

The left tolerates Radical Islam because both individual sovereignty as a threat.

These short sighted Christians ally with those who tolerate no religious completion in an effort to some how magically turn faith into science.

Fools to right of me, Fools to left of me.
Into the valley of insanity rode the 600.

6 itellu3times  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:39:22pm

ot - they are holding the Obamanation just down the road this evening from my barber shop. I asked the barber if he was going to go, told him tickets were $29,000, but that included Barbra, and I believed, dinner. Said he wasn't planning to attend.

7 WrathofG-d  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:40:08pm

I wonder if they ever watched this: Evolution In The Quran

8 abolitionist  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:40:09pm

I came from a big Kaboom. I am stardust. Literally.

9 nonic  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:40:45pm

As soon as you mandate that the mere discussion of a topic is verboten ("said creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue" -- same as Sarah Palin's position, incidentally), you give that topic POWER and imbue it with the flavor of forbidden fruit. What a stupid idea.

10 godfrey  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:40:46pm

It's the 1860's all over again.

11 Syrah  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:41:01pm

re: #6 itellu3times

ot - they are holding the Obamanation just down the road this evening from my barber shop. I asked the barber if he was going to go, told him tickets were $29,000, but that included Barbra, and I believed, dinner. Said he wasn't planning to attend.

They are spending money faster then they can raise it.

12 nonic  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:42:15pm

re: #6 itellu3times

Said he wasn't planning to attend

Must be because of the bad economy.

/

13 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:43:02pm
Evolution is a world-view that leads to futility. It’s no wonder people are dissatisfied with it.”


Ah. . .the ostrich approach to science.
This theory makes people unhappy, so let's assume it isn't true.

14 Sizzlack  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:43:31pm

The DI has shown me the light. One day there was nothing. The next day there was Jesus, Mohammed, and Abraham roasting halal over a pit fire in the middle of the desert with T Rexs. The next day there was coca cola and mega churches. Creationism rocks.

15 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:43:41pm

re: #11 Syrah

They are spending money faster then they can raise it.

How do you know that?
There are fewer than 60 days left before the election.

16 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:43:55pm

FUBAR.

17 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:44:09pm
welcomes the determination of Muslims to impart a religious-based view of the world ...

... even though his head is so far up his posterior orifice that he doesn't know what ELSE is coming down the Islamist turnpike.

/idiot

18 turn  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:44:47pm

re: #6 itellu3times

ot - they are holding the Obamanation just down the road this evening from my barber shop. I asked the barber if he was going to go, told him tickets were $29,000, but that included Barbra, and I believed, dinner. Said he wasn't planning to attend.

If he had sliky pony as a client he'd probably have enough money to attend by now. Haven't heard much from silky pony lately, come to think about it.

19 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:45:38pm
20 DeafDog  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:46:35pm

Over 20 threads without the mention of Creationism....not bad.

21 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:46:37pm

That's it, I'm pulling my kids out of British education!

22 Cognito  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:48:04pm

I also understand that Christian Creationists and Islamic fundamentalists worked with Kevin Bacon in Footloose!

/do I win?

23 scottishbuzzsaw  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:48:09pm
The Royal Society reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.

"However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."

Sounds reasonable...

24 Sizzlack  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:49:06pm

re: #21 Ben Hur

That's it, I'm pulling my kids out of British education!

A British school day looks like...?

4 hours of Mr. Bean
1.5 hours of tea time
1 hour of waiting for the Muslim students to return from prayer

25 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:50:48pm

OK, then explain this!

Animals without backbones.

26 nonic  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:51:42pm

re: #23 scottishbuzzsaw

Sounds reasonable...

Totally agree.

27 Wytnucls  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:51:51pm

I don't see why Creationism or ID couldn't be discussed in class, if pupils raise the issue. It shouldn't be presented as a scientific alternative to Evolution though, but just as a religious concept.

28 HelloDare  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:52:15pm

If only she had started talking after her chest cold.

Monkey at Israeli Zoo Walks on Two Legs After Severe Stomach Ailment Nearly Killed Her [photo]

JERUSALEM (AP) -- A young monkey at an Israeli zoo has started walking like a human following a near death experience, the zoo's veterinarian said Wednesday.

Natasha, a small five-year-old black macaque monkey at the Safari Park next to Tel Aviv, began walking exclusively upright on two legs after a stomach ailment nearly killed her, zookeepers said.

Monkeys usually alternate between upright movement and walking on all fours. A picture in the Maariv daily on Wednesday showed Natasha standing ramrod straight like a human. The picture was labeled humorously, "The Missing Link?"

Two weeks ago, Natasha and three other monkeys were diagnosed with severe stomach flu. At the zoo clinic, she slipped into critical condition, said Igal Horowitz, the veterinarian.

"I was sure that she was going to die," he said. "She could hardly breathe, and her heart was not functioning properly."

After intensive treatment, Natasha's condition stabilized, but she exhibited strange behavior, and a day after was released from the clinic, she began walking erect like a human being.

"I've never seen or heard of this before," said Horowitz. One possible explanation is brain damage from the illness, he said.

Besides her evolutionally advanced method of movement, Horowitz said, Natasha's behavior has returned to normal.

29 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:52:31pm

re: #23 scottishbuzzsaw

Sounds reasonable...

It sounds reasonable until you realize that the ongoing "discussion" can potentially use up all remaining class time, particularly if left unchecked.

Maybe OK, maybe not.

30 Ringo the Gringo  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:52:35pm
creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue...

I don't have a problem with that so long as the teacher makes clear in the conversation that any literal interpretation of Biblical (or Koranic) creationism is refuted by virtually all scientific knowledge. The teacher might also point out that not all theologians believe that the creation story should be taken literally, and that further inquiry in to the subject should happen in a religion or philosophy course, not in a science class.

That's about as far as the conversation needs to go in a science classroom.

31 Cognito  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:52:35pm

re: #23 scottishbuzzsaw

Sounds reasonable...

Nonsense! It's anti-knowledge!

Cast him into the sea!

32 turn  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:52:41pm

re: #25 Ben Hur

OK, then explain this!

Animals without backbones.

It's a boner?

33 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:53:17pm

I got a DVD today in the mail called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West from The Clarion Fund. Haven't watched it yet, and I don't recall having ever heard of The Clarion Fund before...

34 DeeMack  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:54:18pm

Ehhh...at some point we'll have to come BACK... to the Future! The sooner the better. Before we're all wearing loincloths again.

35 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:54:29pm

re: #28 HelloDare

If only she had started talking after her chest cold.

Hah. It doesn't take a monkey.
You just have to have faith.

36 Ringo the Gringo  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:54:33pm

re: #33 J.D.

I got a DVD today in the mail called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West from The Clarion Fund. Haven't watched it yet, and I don't recall having ever heard of The Clarion Fund before...

Good flick, watch it....Share it with a friend.

37 The Other Les  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:54:38pm
“The materialist explanation of the creation has nothing to offer - if we came from nothing and go into nothing, then that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles. Evolution is a world-view that leads to futility. It’s no wonder people are dissatisfied with it.”


Anyone whose livelihood is dependent on the promulgation of a doctrine can be reasonably expected to object to the contradiction of that doctrine.

And Barbara Streisand is doing a fundraiser for The Big ZERO.

Gosh what a surprise.

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

[Link: flickr.com...]

38 opnion  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:54:44pm

If A kid brings it up, they shouild be abvle to discuss it, but it should never be presented as science & is really more suited to Theology or philosophy.
This whole idea of breaking down barriers in order to please Islam is a loser. They will just want more & more.

39 scottishbuzzsaw  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:55:28pm

re: #29 looking closely

It sounds reasonable until you realize that the ongoing "discussion" can potentially use up all remaining class time, particularly if left unchecked.

Maybe OK, maybe not.

I understand your point...I was thinking more of evolution is science, creationism is faith...quick and easy, then let's get back to the today's lesson...

40 nonic  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:55:36pm

re: #29 looking closely


It sounds reasonable until you realize that the ongoing "discussion" can potentially use up all remaining class time, particularly if left unchecked

Isn't that why you have professional teachers who know how to manage a class and keep on topic? Believe me, kids will yak endlessly about ANYTHING or nothing if they're allowed to get away with it.

41 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:56:13pm

re: #37 The Other Les

Anyone whose livelihood is dependent on the promulgation of a doctrine can be reasonably expected to object to the contradiction of that doctrine.


True, though it bears mentioning that the same is absolutely true of scientists as well.

42 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:56:37pm

re: #36 Ringo the Gringo

Good flick, watch it....Share it with a friend.

OK. I will.
Did you receive it with your newspaper? That's how, I read, it was initially delivered.

43 DeeMack  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:57:14pm

re: #33 J.D.

I got a DVD today in the mail called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West from The Clarion Fund. Haven't watched it yet, and I don't recall having ever heard of The Clarion Fund before...


Yeah...they've been handed out all over Florida. Word is some Muslims in Miami are already having a hissy fit! CAIR's on it.

Fatwa coming in 3...2...1

44 Ringo the Gringo  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:57:47pm

re: #42 J.D.

OK. I will.
Did you receive it with your newspaper? That's how, I read, it was initially delivered.

I recieved a copy in this week's National Review.

What newspaper did you get your copy with?

45 turn  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:57:51pm

re: #28 HelloDare

Neat article, and the idea that the sickness and the change in walking might be related is totally believable to me. After all, much of the evolution we went through was the result of overcoming infectious diseases. Did you read hear back a while where scientists successfully brought back to life a virus that was encoded in the human DNA? Wild stuff.

46 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:58:14pm

re: #43 DeeMack

Yeah...they've been handed out all over Florida. Word is some Muslims in Miami are already having a hissy fit! CAIR's on it.

Fatwa coming in 3...2...1

Oh! CAIR's all over it? Must be good!

47 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:58:35pm

re: #45 turn

Neat article, and the idea that the sickness and the change in walking might be related is totally believable to me. After all, much of the evolution we went through was the result of overcoming infectious diseases. Did you read hear back a while where scientists successfully brought back to life a virus that was encoded in the human DNA? Wild stuff.

Doesn't that worry anybody?

Maybe just a bit?

48 scottishbuzzsaw  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:58:36pm

re: #30 Ringo the Gringo

I don't have a problem with that so long as the teacher makes clear in the conversation that any literal interpretation of Biblical (or Koranic) creationism is refuted by virtually all scientific knowledge. The teacher might also point out that not all theologians believe that the creation story should be taken literally, and that further inquiry in to the subject should happen in a religion or philosophy course, not in a science class.

That's about as far as the conversation needs to go in a science classroom.

Exactly...

49 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:58:48pm

re: #40 nonic

Isn't that why you have professional teachers who know how to manage a class and keep on topic? Believe me, kids will yak endlessly about ANYTHING or nothing if they're allowed to get away with it.


Of course.

Its possible for a teacher to simply say "Some people believe that, but there isn't scientific evidence to back it up" and end the matter right there.

But is that really a "discussion"?

50 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 1:58:58pm

re: #44 Ringo the Gringo

U.S. Postal Service.
I quit the newspaper and, well, all printed stuff.

51 Cap'n DOC  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:00:07pm

re: #14 Sizzlack

Must clarify. Belief in a Creator not = Creationism.

52 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:00:55pm

re: #47 Ben Hur

Doesn't that worry anybody?

Maybe just a bit?


No. Presumeably people are immune (or potentially immune) to viruses contained within their own DNA.

Its quite possible to manipulate viruses in-vivo. . .happens every day in certain labs, actually.

But creating a pathogenic virus de-novo is pretty damn tough.

53 nonic  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:01:49pm

In fact, when it comes to the Muslim kids, if you DON'T allow the teacher to say "this is science, that is faith, and both are respectable in their own ways, but what we study here is science," I think you're kind of re-inforcing to the kids the idea that one is true and one is false and their parents and preachers will tell them which is "true."

54 Cognito  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:02:16pm

re: #51 Cap'n DOC

Must clarify. Belief in a Creator not = Creationism.

It is, actually. A Creator must, by definition, create something. It's just a matter of how. Some people believe evolution is the 'how.'

55 Cap'n DOC  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:02:17pm

When all along I thought the words were "I am a Walrus", not "I am a Virus"....

/

56 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:02:21pm

Teach 'the pleasure of gay sex' to children as young as five, say researchers

Well, if they remove Creationism, they'll have time for more pressing subjects.

57 NelsFree  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:02:26pm

#25,

"Animals without backbone, hid from each other, or fell down."

-The Firesign Theatre, I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus

58 Sizzlack  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:02:57pm

re: #51 Cap'n DOC

Oh I was just trying to make a stupid joke...nothing serious.

59 opnion  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:03:36pm

The subplot here is that Muslims are not going to be satisfied with a Christian version of Creationism taught side by side with the Islamic story, no matter how similar (Remember the meteor?)
They will want the discussion segregated, so that Muslims are not soiled with Christian thought.
Then & you know they will, they will demand a teachable moment where the whole class has to dress & act Muslim.

60 Cap'n DOC  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:03:37pm

re: #54 Cognito

Very true. But the 6,000 x 6 believers are Creationists. I am not, so therefor belief in a Creator does not rule out evolution, Cognito.

61 turn  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:03:38pm

re: #47 Ben Hur

Doesn't that worry anybody?

Maybe just a bit?

I just kind of have to have faith that scientists in this, and many other fields, are taking the necessary precautions. But yes it can get a bit scary, wait until they are able to custom design living organisms - oh and that is right around the corner too. Molecular nanotechnology, used as a WMD, is one future scenario mankind will have to deal with and one that is potentially much worse than something organic.

62 Cap'n DOC  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:04:46pm

re: #58 Sizzlack

Cognito thinks so... But, maybe that's just me - and Cognito being Contrario instead.

63 Cognito  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:04:55pm

re: #60 Cap'n DOC

Very true. But the 6,000 x 6 believers are Creationists. I am not, so therefor belief in a Creator does not rule out evolution, Cognito.

Of course not, as I said.

(Although I wouldn't hand over the term 'Creationist' to that group so readily.)

64 Cap'n DOC  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:05:21pm

re: #63 Cognito

You wouldn't? Who knew?

65 Sizzlack  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:06:36pm

re: #62 Cap'n DOC

Every time I hear the word 'creationism' i see moses riding a brontosaurus over a rainbow, so I usually wind up with some sort of variation of that every time I read a related thread on here. not meant to be negative

66 Cap'n DOC  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:06:37pm

re: #63 Cognito

Sorry, Cog - I don't read so good.

67 Cap'n DOC  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:07:14pm

re: #65 Sizzlack

Hey man, I believe in a Creator, and I don't rule out anything.

68 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:07:14pm

re: #54 Cognito

It is, actually. A Creator must, by definition, create something. It's just a matter of how. Some people believe evolution is the 'how.'

Agreed, though by convention "Creationism" generally refers to a belief in biblical-type (ie ex-nihilo diety-based) creation.

So yes, you can believe in a Creator, but not in Creationism (eg as promulgated by the ones who want it taught as an alternative to evolution).

69 turn  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:07:34pm

re: #52 looking closely

No. Presumeably people are immune (or potentially immune) to viruses contained within their own DNA.

Its quite possible to manipulate viruses in-vivo. . .happens every day in certain labs, actually.

But creating a pathogenic virus de-novo is pretty damn tough.

See #61. They thought cracking the genetic code was nearly impossible not too many years ago, and it happened far sooner than most anybody in the field would have guessed (you can correct me anytime :.). But I really do think this de-novo creation of life will happen a lot sooner than most realize. Hope the controls are in place.

70 Cap'n DOC  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:07:56pm

BBL

71 Cognito  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:08:11pm

re: #68 looking closely

Sounds like the -ism is the troublesome bit.

72 Sizzlack  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:08:35pm

re: #67 Cap'n DOC

I'm not knocking that. I'm coming from a very childish angle here, the whole dinosaurs being around at the same time as people....thats all.

73 turn  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:08:40pm

re: #52 looking closely

No. Presumeably people are immune (or potentially immune) to viruses contained within their own DNA.

Its quite possible to manipulate viruses in-vivo. . .happens every day in certain labs, actually.

But creating a pathogenic virus de-novo is pretty damn tough.

Oh, and that word is exactly why this still bothers me and Ben a bit.

74 Pullus Iulius  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:08:55pm

There is a miracle at work here, and that miracle is that a Church of England minister has a strong belief in anything.

75 nonic  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:10:31pm

re: #49 looking closely

But is that really a "discussion"?

I think it is, if the teacher says, "There isn't scientific evidence to back it up, and in this class we study science. You might discuss ideas without evidence behind them in your philosophy or literature classes."

A brave teacher might ask the class what sorts of evidence might be convincing to prove creationism. That would be a discussion specifically about science --- what is acceptable evidence.

76 abolitionist  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:11:12pm

re: #33 J.D.

I got a DVD today in the mail called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West from The Clarion Fund. Haven't watched it yet, and I don't recall having ever heard of The Clarion Fund before...

Near bottom:

Clarion Fund. 255 West 36th Street, Suite 800, New York, NY 10018

[Link: www.obsessionthemovie.com...]

77 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:11:25pm

re: #61 turn

wait until they are able to custom design living organisms -


"They" are able to custom create living organisms RIGHT NOW.

The technology has been around for decades, and gets used every day. Ever heard of recombinant mice?

Modifying existing organisms to make "custom" ones has been possible for a long, long time, long before anyone even knew what "DNA" was.

Its called "breeding".

Where do you think Daschunds came from?

Now, as to creating custom organisms from "scratch" as it were, is beyond modern technology, but if you permit using fragments from existing organisms, it probably could be done right now in a limited way (though it would be astronomically expensive and labor intensive).

78 jokono  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:13:06pm

That's right. Creationists reject "most of modern science." *rolls eyes*

79 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:13:38pm

re: #59 opnion

The subplot here is that Muslims are not going to be satisfied with a Christian version of Creationism taught side by side with the Islamic story, no matter how similar (Remember the meteor?)
They will want the discussion segregated, so that Muslims are not soiled with Christian thought.
Then & you know they will, they will demand a teachable moment where the whole class has to dress & act Muslim.

BINGO!

80 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:13:59pm

re: #76 abolitionist

Thanks.
I've been looking around and there's another one coming: "The Third Jihad".
I found a website called Popular ProgressivePopular Progressive which is...different, as you might imagine.

81 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:14:35pm

oops

82 Eowyn2  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:16:27pm

re: #54 Cognito

It is, actually. A Creator must, by definition, create something. It's just a matter of how. Some people believe evolution is the 'how.'

I have a firm belief in God the Creator. I do not believe creationism should be taught in a science classroom. Nor do I think the Christian Creationi movement should be whoring itself out to the Muslims in a joint effort to put creationism into a science classroom. (science vs social studies.) I also believe that the theory of evolution and the big bang theory should be taught as theories rather than actual events (science vs history)

I guess I am a literalist.
science = science
math = math
history = history
religion /= religion y

83 abolitionist  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:16:49pm

Charles, if my post #76 is contrary to the guidelines, I apologize, and please delete it.

84 turn  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:16:56pm

re: #77 looking closely

"They" are able to custom create living organisms RIGHT NOW.

The technology has been around for decades, and gets used every day. Ever heard of recombinant mice?

Modifying existing organisms to make "custom" ones has been possible for a long, long time, long before anyone even knew what "DNA" was.

Its called "breeding".

Where do you think Daschunds came from?

Now, as to creating custom organisms from "scratch" as it were, is beyond modern technology, but if you permit using fragments from existing organisms, it probably could be done right now in a limited way (though it would be astronomically expensive and labor intensive).


Hey, I did get corrected! Seriously, I was thinking along the "from scratch" line. The scary part for me is there, not so much in the selective breeding or gene splicing.

85 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:16:56pm

CNN's Crowley: Obama Team Wanted 'Horrific' Wall Street Headlines

On Monday's "Anderson Cooper 360," after CNN senior political analyst David Gergen said "what happened over the weekend with the economy and the bottom falling out of the financial markets...is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side," Crowley actually said, "[J]ust as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street...I mean, this is what they wanted."

86 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:17:46pm

re: #83 abolitionist

That's all public information so I doubt there's a problem, but we'll see what Charles thinks.

87 Perf  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:17:47pm

The controversy comes down to: it is OK to teach metaphysics in a science class?

88 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:18:06pm

re: #69 turn

See #61. They thought cracking the genetic code was nearly impossible not too many years ago, and it happened far sooner than most anybody in the field would have guessed (you can correct me anytime :.). But I really do think this de-novo creation of life will happen a lot sooner than most realize. Hope the controls are in place.

Now we get into distinctions without differences.

Its absolutely possible right now to take a disease-causing virus, and breed/modify it to make a far more dangerous and infectious one.

Again, not news. . .the Soviets were doing this for decades with the Smallpox virus, and there probably still ARE stockpiles of lethal hyper-Smallpox in the hands of some of the world's worst regimes (like North Korea).

The USA had an active biological weapons development program until the Nixon administration (and possibly after that as well).

It absolutely *is* possible right now to take many existing organisms, and modify them in varying ways. I mentioned recombinant mice. Have you heard of glow-in-the-dark tobacco?

What can't be done (yet) is to create an entirely novel organism *from scratch* (ie de novo), as opposed to creating one from pieces of existing ones. Its not clear that there is much practical difference, though.

89 looking closely  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:19:26pm

re: #82 Eowyn2

I also believe that the theory of evolution and the big bang theory should be taught as theories rather than actual events (science vs history)

I guess I am a literalist.y

I think you are.
Do you subscribe to the theory of gravity?

90 lifeofthemind  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:20:20pm

OT bad news the Rasmussen for NY shows Obama way ahead.

On that note I have more of life to dealwith, hope all are well.

91 alegrias  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:22:26pm

re: #85 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

CNN's Crowley: Obama Team Wanted 'Horrific' Wall Street Headlines

* * *
David Gergen, what a total jerk. He pretends to be neutral and non partisan while enabling world citizens to savor crippling our country!

Gergen's just wrong. That's not nonpartisan, it's anti-US cheerleading.

Former President Gerald Ford is turning in his grave for having employed this creep.

92 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:22:36pm
The materialist explanation of the creation has nothing to offer - if we came from nothing and go into nothing, then that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles. Evolution is a world-view that leads to futility. It’s no wonder people are dissatisfied with it.

What an odd thing to say. Does he think people believe in evolution because they're looking for a worldview they'd be satisfied with? People believe it because it's fact, numbskull!

93 turn  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:27:35pm

re: #88 looking closely

Its not clear that there is much practical difference, though.

Really? That surprises the hell out of me. Please explain (or not - I've got to leave until tomorrow but will come back then)

I was thinking for starters - how about designing some infectious disease that was literally unaffected by any known antibody or antibiotic. Soem unheard of infectious pathway. Or maybe you see no distinction between this and what can already be done using genetic engineering of existing life forms. Curious.

94 DeafDog  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:27:56pm

re: #91 alegrias

* * *
David Gergen, what a total jerk. He pretends to be neutral and non partisan while enabling world citizens to savor crippling our country!

Gergen's just wrong. That's not nonpartisan, it's anti-US cheerleading.

Former President Gerald Ford is turning in his grave for having employed this creep.

In general, I agree that Gergan is nothing but a penis with ears. In this particular case, however, he's just speaking political reality.

It's shocking to me, however, that McCain is not taking this opportunity to point out all of the campaign contributions that BHO has collected from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehmans and the rest of the Wallstreet crowd. Both political parties are in the middle of this incestuous mess. What we need is a president who is going to fix the mess, regardless of the various political affiliations. Who has such a record?

95 NR Pax  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:28:46pm
“The materialist explanation of the creation has nothing to offer - if we came from nothing and go into nothing, then that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles. Evolution is a world-view that leads to futility. It’s no wonder people are dissatisfied with it.”

*ahem*

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.-Jeremiah 5:21

96 nonic  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:33:05pm

#59 opnion
#79 Mandy

Which is exactly why NO religion should be taught in public schools.

Incidentally, I graduated from high school in 1963, which was the last year that prayer was allowed in public schools. Up until then we started every day with a reading from the Judeo-Christian Bible and a group recitation of The Lord's Prayer (see below if you don't know the words to that).

It has always struck me as funny (as in ironic) that all the teen-agers, 20-somethings, and everybody else who bought about the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Movement, the Sexual Revolution, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, the culture wars, widespread drug use , and Rock 'n Roll --- all the great and wonderful good things of modern living, right?, were all people who had been "contaminated" by that hateful, suffocating ideology imposed on their innocent little minds in the classroom.

Life is just to hard to figure. Hmm-hm.

-----------------------------------
Lord's Prayer
Our father, who art in heaven
Hallowed by thy name
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
Forgive us our (sins)
as we forgive those who (sin) against us
Lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from evil

97 formercorpsman  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:34:27pm

OT
Folks, if anyone has the time to dedicate to it, this whole fannie mae/freddie mac is astounding.

I am still trying to get up to speed with it, but something tells me this is massive if it could get some traction.

One of the more interesting aspects is the ACORN angle in all of it. As well, Obama's representation of ACORN in the wake of motor voter.

98 gunjam  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:35:37pm
It's shocking to me, however, that McCain is not taking this opportunity to point out all of the campaign contributions that BHO has collected from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehmans and the rest of the Wallstreet crowd. Both political parties are in the middle of this incestuous mess. What we need is a president who is going to fix the mess, regardless of the various political affiliations. Who has such a record?

McCain is a Democrat in RINO clothing and his campaign lacks true insight and intelligence. He all too often refuses to go after Obama on issues of substance.

99 JCM  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:36:27pm

re: #92 Lizard by the Bay

What an odd thing to say. Does he think people believe in evolution because they're looking for a worldview they'd be satisfied with? People believe it because it's fact, numbskull!

It seems that he makes a fundamental flaw many make.

That is that Creation or Evolution is a binary solution set. You can have one or the other.

He misses there are two realms. One of faith and spirituality, one of facts and science.

Instead of binary, it a multidimensional solution set. But people don't like that, they like THE ANSWER.

100 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:36:40pm

re: #96 nonic

It has always struck me as funny (as in ironic) that all the teen-agers, 20-somethings, and everybody else who bought about the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Movement, the Sexual Revolution, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, the culture wars, widespread drug use , and Rock 'n Roll --- all the great and wonderful good things of modern living, right?, were all people who had been "contaminated" by that hateful, suffocating ideology imposed on their innocent little minds in the classroom.

The time was ripe for revolutionaly behaviors.

Thanks, Gramsci.

101 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:37:06pm

re: #94 DeafDog

If you haven't seen it, read The Real Culprits In This Meltdown in Investor's Business Daily.

Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck. ...

102 alegrias  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:39:10pm

re: #94 DeafDog

* * *
How does any one person fix a financial system that has millions of parts AND YET is considered the world's top system?

It would be a start to stop politicians from steering taxpayer dollars down ratholes that having nothing to do with our nation's top priorities.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to a HOUSE for no money down? Who gave the "government" the right to give SOME people houses and charge YOU?

103 eschew_obfuscation  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:41:06pm

re: #102 alegrias

* * *
How does any one person fix a financial system that has millions of parts AND YET is considered the world's top system?

It would be a start to stop politicians from steering taxpayer dollars down ratholes that having nothing to do with our nation's top priorities.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to a HOUSE for no money down? Who gave the "government" the right to give SOME people houses and charge YOU?

Had to ding this one up!

I guess, if you're "feeling" instead of "thinking", this all makes perfect sense.....

104 rhino2  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:41:50pm

I see so many people saying that the discussion should be allowed if a student brings it up.

Now I'm just curious, whats happening now when a student brings it up? Does the teacher just say we can't discuss it and move on? Is there a law on the books that keeps the discussion from happening? I'm confused on this, if anyone else knows please enlighten me.

105 alegrias  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:42:10pm

re: #98 gunjam

McCain is a Democrat in RINO clothing and his campaign lacks true insight and intelligence. He all too often refuses to go after Obama on issues of substance.

* * *
McCain puts country first, including winning the war, and is rated CONSERVATIVE on critical issues.

McCain says his opponents record is a problem. There's plenty of people & ways to point that out to our uninformed or undecided friends in the center & left.

We have 50 days in which to accomplish this mission.

106 JCM  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:42:51pm

Hannity.....

Arguing with Obamabot.
"His life [Obama] is a trail of great decisions!"

107 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:43:01pm

re: #102 alegrias

I had to pay for my own. *sniff*
What about you?

108 nonic  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:44:05pm

#100 Mandy

The time was ripe for revolutionaly behaviors.

I agree, but I think that's just another way of saying that people were prepared to move in a different direction. And my point is that a Bible reading and prayer in the classroom didn't make a heck of a lot of difference.

(I gave the words to it so that people unfamiliar could see that it's a pretty innocuous and bland bunch of words.)

But that was then. when our society was darn close to homogenous. Nowadays, diversity has brought an end to that kind of social peace. Although I don't think that prayer "hurt" back then (doubt it helped much either), now it would be disasterous. And therefore I say there should be NO religion taught or PRACTICED in public school.

109 Alouette  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:44:19pm
110 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:45:16pm
111 alegrias  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:45:19pm

re: #107 J.D.

I had to pay for my own. *sniff*
What about you?

* * *
Me too, with a nice assist from my family. I cannot ever repay them enough! But I have returned their investment! And I became even more conservative.

112 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:47:40pm

re: #109 Alouette

Soros may have lost $120M in Lehman crash

Heh.

Might be pocket change for him but, still...LOL!

113 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:47:56pm

re: #110 buzzsawmonkey

Pocket change to him.

GMTA.

114 JCM  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:48:13pm
115 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:48:35pm

re: #111 alegrias
And I became even more conservative.


Funny how that tends to work, isn't it?
Thank heaven...

116 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:49:07pm

re: #112 MandyManners

Might be pocket change for him but, still...LOL!

My heart bleeds.

117 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:49:10pm

re: #108 nonic

#100 Mandy

The time was ripe for revolutionaly behaviors.

I agree, but I think that's just another way of saying that people were prepared to move in a different direction. And my point is that a Bible reading and prayer in the classroom didn't make a heck of a lot of difference.

(I gave the words to it so that people unfamiliar could see that it's a pretty innocuous and bland bunch of words.)

But that was then. when our society was darn close to homogenous. Nowadays, diversity has brought an end to that kind of social peace. Although I don't think that prayer "hurt" back then (doubt it helped much either), now it would be disasterous. And therefore I say there should be NO religion taught or PRACTICED in public school.

Teaching creationism is letting that camel's nose under the tent.

118 Nevergiveup  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:49:47pm

re: #109 Alouette

Soros may have lost $120M in Lehman crash

Heh.

Well thats 120 mil he can't use this election cycle. Babs better really belt out them songs tonight to make up the difference?

119 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:50:38pm

Am I the only one who thinks that Soros and his Gramscian Whore buddies can take a hit like that on the chin and not mind as long as it helps usher in BHO?

120 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:50:45pm
121 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:50:58pm

re: #116 J.D.

My heart bleeds.

Oh! And it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

122 Spiny Norman  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:51:00pm

re: #22 Cognito

I also understand that Christian Creationists and Islamic fundamentalists worked with Kevin Bacon in Footloose!

/do I win?

I used to work with someone whose husband was on the sound crew for Footloose. No, I am not kidding.

/three degrees, baby!

123 WinterCat  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:51:41pm

re: #27 Wytnucls

I agree. I am not a creationist. I don't go to church, am not religious in any sense although I do think there could be a higher power. How the heck would I or anyone else know for certain for Pete's sake? But if a student raises the subject what is wrong with a discussion? Talking things out helps students learn to reason for themselves. For that matter, it is unbelievable that discussion of the topic would be forbidden. What is the world coming to? More restrictions every day. I am afraid for the future of mankind if we will all be reduced to speaking only of state approved subjects.

These days, I am frequently reminded of the Amnesty International commercial from so many years ago that talked about the people who were put in jail for toasting to freedom. We currently live in a world where people are put on trial for their opinions and fired from their jobs for saying something "offensive". How long before the Thought Nazi's get all bloggers names and start to march us off to their camps to be dealt with accordingly?

"It can't happen here."
-Frank Zappa

124 quickjustice  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:51:52pm

I heard a lecture last night by Theodore Darylmple, an English physician who writes for City Journal, about the politics and culture of decline in England. He said that many talented Englishmen leave the country, and that their replacements are entirely foreign-born, and often Muslim.

With this ongoing demographic reality, England as we have known it (a Victorian construct, but still a virtuous construct) must inevitably decline and fall.

125 Typicalwhitey  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:51:57pm

OT:

Biden Versus the 'Bucket of Fluff'...

Obama is so smart that he couldn't be from a Republican neighborhood.....keep 'em coming Joe!

126 Nevergiveup  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:53:03pm

Pelosi: Dems bear no responsibility for economic crisis

[Link: thehill.com...]

Does she live in Washington DC or Fantasy land at Disney World? Oh Yeah, what's the difference?

127 Eowyn2  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:53:05pm

re: #89 looking closely

gravity is measurable. It is an obvious physical force and is therefore not a theory but a fact. And it is also true that an item at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

128 JCM  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:54:05pm

re: #119 MandyManners

Am I the only one who thinks that Soros and his Gramscian Whore buddies can take a hit like that on the chin and not mind as long as it helps usher in BHO?

Soros engineered the Back of England crash. He is not above manipulation markets for his own ends.

129 Spiny Norman  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:54:15pm

re: #109 Alouette

Soros may have lost $120M in Lehman crash

Heh.

::world's smallest violin::

Suck it, Goldfinger!

130 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:54:25pm
131 JCM  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:54:38pm

re: #128 JCM

PIMF Bank not back.

132 Spiny Norman  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:54:50pm

re: #119 MandyManners

Am I the only one who thinks that Soros and his Gramscian Whore buddies can take a hit like that on the chin and not mind as long as it helps usher in BHO?

Sadly, no.

133 Nevergiveup  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:55:10pm

KATIE COURIC TO INTERVIEW SARAH PALIN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

[Link: www.drudgereport.com...]

Big mistake. Big mistake.

134 DeafDog  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:55:27pm

re: #98 gunjam

re: #101 J.D.

re: #102 alegrias


What has been going on at Fannie and Fredie for the last 20 years is a crying shame. Any American who learns the story will be appalled. Politcal hacks making millions as investment professionals. Campaign contributions, lunches, trips and gifts for congressman. It stinks.

Think of all the worthless congressional hearing we've had on things like steroids in baseball, Scooter Libby or Monica Lewinsky. How many times have they rehashed the oil industry or tobacco to say the same thing over and over. Then, we get a trillion dollar whack to the economy and what do we get from Congress........crickets!

This issue is tailor made for a true reformer.

Johnny Mac & Sarah Baracudda - It's time to earn your stripes.

135 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:56:17pm

re: #120 buzzsawmonkey

Mandy, totally OT, but I saw this and figured you might be amused.

Arthur Murray Taught Me Dancing in a Hurry.

I love the bit about telling the left from the right, especially the arm movements.

136 Spiny Norman  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:56:28pm

re: #128 JCM

Soros engineered the Back of England crash. He is not above manipulation markets for his own ends.

He was the single largest investor in hedge funds shorting mortgage-back securities, so yes, he did do his best to manipulate this current crisis.

137 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:56:46pm
138 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:57:35pm
139 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:59:08pm

re: #128 JCM

Soros engineered the Back of England crash. He is not above manipulation markets for his own ends.

Now, that's a link about Soros that I did not have. THANKS!

140 Nemesis6  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 2:59:32pm

re: #14 Sizzlack

There was also Mecca Cola! :D

141 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:00:02pm

re: #130 buzzsawmonkey

Hey, if their gamble pays off, it's open season at the trough.

I'm also thinking about the mess the Democrats made of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Was it on purpose?!

142 boogberg  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:00:05pm

Speaking of the UK:

Sharia courts operating in Britain

Sorry if already posted.

143 johnnyreb  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:00:07pm

re: #119 MandyManners

Am I the only one who thinks that Soros and his Gramscian Whore buddies can take a hit like that on the chin and not mind as long as it helps usher in BHO?


I think the same thing. They will give up nearly everything to see a Dem in the White house with the Dems controlling both The House and Senate.

/insert Dr. Evil laugh here.

144 DeafDog  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:00:08pm

re: #137 buzzsawmonkey

Twenty-f*cking-five to one
My gambling days are done
I bet on the gal called "a Bucket of Fluff"
And my gal won.

--the Pogues, adapted

Did you ever see the Mercedes Benz commercial with "Sunny Side of the Street" in the background? They actually said the lyrics on the commercial, "with a heart full of hate and a lust full of vomit" while showing the smiling drivers....I wonder it that sells cars?

145 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:00:40pm

re: #132 Spiny Norman

Sadly, no.

I'm getting some shivers up and down my spine.

146 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:01:01pm

re: #133 Nevergiveup

KATIE COURIC TO INTERVIEW SARAH PALIN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

[Link: www.drudgereport.com...]

Big mistake. Big mistake.

Palin will eat her lunch.

147 DeafDog  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:01:19pm

re: #141 MandyManners

I'm also thinking about the mess the Democrats made of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Was it on purpose?!

You give way too much credit even thinking that.

It was pure incompetence (and the natural results of socialism).

148 Spiny Norman  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:01:19pm

re: #142 boogberg

Speaking of the UK:

Sharia courts operating in Britain

Sorry if already posted.

Honor killings soon to be legal, for all intents and purposes.

149 twincitiesgirl  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:01:24pm

re: #7 WrathofG-d

Profound.......................................... .....ly ignorant.

150 Nevergiveup  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:02:29pm

The "pollsters" also asked what would-be Jewish voters thought if they were told that the president of Iran also "endorsed Obama," or if they learned that Obama "supported a united Jerusalem and then switched his opinion and believed in a divided Jerusalem," or Jimmy Carter's "anti-Israel national security advisor is one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors."

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

And what exactly is misleading?

151 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:02:30pm

re: #143 johnnyreb

I think the same thing. They will give up nearly everything to see a Dem in the White house with the Dems controlling both The House and Senate.

/insert Dr. Evil laugh here.

I'm not talking about just that. I'm talking about a total collapse of the world's economy in order to usher in NWO and Marxism.

152 Spiny Norman  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:03:20pm

re: #145 MandyManners

I'm getting some shivers up and down my spine.

Merely throwing money at the Democrats didn't work so well for him in 2004, so I fully expect a real "October Surprise" from that loathsome crook.

153 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:04:56pm
154 J.D.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:05:53pm

re: #134 DeafDog

Hear! Hear!

155 johnnyreb  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:06:46pm

re: #151 MandyManners

I'm not talking about just that. I'm talking about a total collapse of the world's economy in order to usher in NWO and Marxism.

That is what they need to start it. Without the Dems in total control, the US economy can bounce back from pretty much anything. With the Dems in control I have my doubts. And like it or not, the US economy pretty much runs the world as we have seen these past few months.

156 Eowyn2  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:07:05pm
157 Nevergiveup  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:07:39pm

re: #146 MandyManners

Palin will eat her lunch.

Before or after the edits?

158 JCM  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:08:10pm

re: #136 Spiny Norman

He was the single largest investor in hedge funds shorting mortgage-back securities, so yes, he did do his best to manipulate this current crisis.

We've got Soros fiddling the markets, and Obama operative saying the economic situation is something to take advantage of.

Obama's organizing group is fiddling voter registration in at least a dozen states.

The media is in the tank for Obama.

Despite all that he's still in trouble.

159 DeafDog  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:09:26pm

re: #153 buzzsawmonkey

I am not familiar with those lyrics for "Sunny Side of the Street." To coin a phrase, it's not the song I know.

If that's part of a Pogues version, I can certainly see how it would fit in with their general worldview. And I can well imagine a Mercedes driver with a heart full of hate and, if not a lust, a bucket full of vomit after a long evening at the clubs.

Sunny Side of the Street Lyrics

My bad. It's:
With a heartful of hate
And a lust for vomit

Still not a typical Mercedes driver

160 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:12:08pm
who join creationists in rejecting most of modern science.

That's a little over the top don't you think?

161 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:12:46pm
162 Charles  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:16:46pm

re: #160 anduril3019

That's a little over the top don't you think?

No, I don't. There's no way you can believe in literal creationism without rejecting almost all of modern science. It's not just about evolution, it's about a host of related and unrelated fields that contribute to evolutionary science and to each other. You can't logically reject evolution without also rejecting every field of study that bears on it and supports it.

163 Eowyn2  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:21:36pm

re: #148 Spiny Norman

Honor killings soon to be legal, for all intents and purposes.

I'm sure a written note from the victim, er, defendant, would suffice to show both parties' aproval.

164 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:31:55pm
165 Lynn B.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:35:39pm

re: #133 Nevergiveup

KATIE COURIC TO INTERVIEW SARAH PALIN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

[Link: www.drudgereport.com...]

Big mistake. Big mistake.

So does this mean that now Katie Couric will get a Charlie Gibson moment?

/huh?

166 Lynn B.  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:39:24pm

re: #33 J.D.

I got a DVD today in the mail called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West from The Clarion Fund. Haven't watched it yet, and I don't recall having ever heard of The Clarion Fund before...

Obsession was produced by Honest Reporting and, as others have said, it's an excellent film.

[Link: www.honestreporting.com...]

167 nyc redneck  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 3:54:39pm

the christian creationists should not be aligning w/ the moslem creationists.
the moslems have another goal that goes beyond turning the world back to the 7th century.
it includes conquering anyone who doesn't subscribe to islam and it will be a barbaric onslaught.
christians won't be christian for long if the jihadis have their way.

168 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:01:10pm
169 Basho  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:04:43pm

re: #127 Eowyn2

gravity is measurable. It is an obvious physical force and is therefore not a theory but a fact. And it is also true that an item at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

In order to get my Mathematics degree I had to take a course called Number Theory. Now I find out a theory is nothing but the crazy ramblings of an old man on a boat. What a waste. I should demand a refund >:(

170 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:04:59pm
171 Basho  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:08:22pm

re: #170 buzzsawmonkey

It was the cluelessness of what a theory means, something that has been posted here to death, that made me down-ding it.

172 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:15:08pm
173 Colin Nelson  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:20:32pm

Another perfect example of Darwin's theory and practice at work right in front of our eyes- survival of the fittest!

174 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:23:40pm

re: #162 Charles

So how have the doctors, surgeons, psychiatrists, structural engineers, laser weaponry developers, and others in science based disciplines, that I know, somehow still managed to succeed while rejecting most of science? In reality I think you have it backward, most science actually is not rejected by those who believe in creationism. It took a heck of a lot of modern science to get my dads prolapse mitral valve replaced, but his creationist doctor was able to stumble through it.

175 Basho  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:26:31pm

re: #172 buzzsawmonkey

I see where you're coming from and respect it, but the "only a theory" fallacy is a frontal attack on the validity of evolution. No one ever says stress theory is only a theory and we shouldn't build bridges because of it. No one ever says number theory or music theory are things that shouldn't be learned when studying mathematics and music respectively because they are not facts. "It's only a theory" is only applied to evolution because that's what they have a problem with.

Forgive me if I ended up not addressing your main point because I went off rambling there...

176 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:29:11pm
177 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:37:52pm

re: #123 WinterCat

I agree. I am not a creationist. I don't go to church, am not religious in any sense although I do think there could be a higher power. How the heck would I or anyone else know for certain for Pete's sake? But if a student raises the subject what is wrong with a discussion? Talking things out helps students learn to reason for themselves. For that matter, it is unbelievable that discussion of the topic would be forbidden. What is the world coming to? More restrictions every day. I am afraid for the future of mankind if we will all be reduced to speaking only of state approved subjects.

These days, I am frequently reminded of the Amnesty International commercial from so many years ago that talked about the people who were put in jail for toasting to freedom. We currently live in a world where people are put on trial for their opinions and fired from their jobs for saying something "offensive". How long before the Thought Nazi's get all bloggers names and start to march us off to their camps to be dealt with accordingly?

"It can't happen here."
-Frank Zappa

Do you them think that anything, in principle, that students bring up in class should be discussed? What if they wanna discuss Holocaust denial, or Stalin admiration, or bestiality with housepets, or flat-earthism, or the efficacy of sacrificing goats to Satan? or initiating sex with teachers they think are hott? All of these belong in high school science classes about as much as does Disco Dewde creationism; that is, not at all.

Freedom of speech, including the freedom to spout unmitigated bullshit, is supposed to take place in the town square, not the high school classroom. That's the place for education.

178 Basho  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:40:34pm

re: #174 anduril3019

The more applied and so-called practical sciences are not really affected by creationism, and people in those fields are more likely to believe other kinds of pseudoscience. Chemistry, biology, paleontology, physics, and in some cases geology and astronomy, are dependent on evolution because evolution draws heavily from those fields.

179 Basho  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:45:35pm

re: #177 Salamantis

I can see a situation where a student is being taught evolution in class and the kid has a problem because his/her parents taught him/her that evolution is false or whatnot. And the student brings it up. But the proper response is for the teacher to say "Let's discuss this after class or during our free-time". Talking about it in class is distracting and ultimately students will abuse the policy.

180 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:45:47pm

re: #174 anduril3019

So how have the doctors, surgeons, psychiatrists, structural engineers, laser weaponry developers, and others in science based disciplines, that I know, somehow still managed to succeed while rejecting most of science? In reality I think you have it backward, most science actually is not rejected by those who believe in creationism. It took a heck of a lot of modern science to get my dads prolapse mitral valve replaced, but his creationist doctor was able to stumble through it.

And what about fields like biology, botany, paleontology, genetics, zoology, embryology, physical anthropology, or in fact any of the life sciences? Not to mention geography, cosmology, plate tectonics and physics for the young-earhters.

181 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 4:46:46pm

re: #178 Basho

The more applied and so-called practical sciences are not really affected by creationism, and people in those fields are more likely to believe other kinds of pseudoscience. Chemistry, biology, paleontology, physics, and in some cases geology and astronomy, are dependent on evolution because evolution draws heavily from those fields.

You beat me to it! ;~)

182 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 5:01:41pm
183 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 5:03:25pm

re: #182 buzzsawmonkey

I see J. Dingboob is up to his old tricks.

Get that view from a mirror, did you?

184 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 5:08:31pm
185 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 5:10:41pm

re: #184 buzzsawmonkey

Sal! I am so looking forward to ignoring your 500 dead thread comments in which you feel you have to answer every single prior post!

You and I are both free to post or not to post, and to read or not to read. That's the way it works.

/nose skin still in place

186 Charles  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 5:14:08pm

re: #174 anduril3019

So how have the doctors, surgeons, psychiatrists, structural engineers, laser weaponry developers, and others in science based disciplines, that I know, somehow still managed to succeed while rejecting most of science? In reality I think you have it backward, most science actually is not rejected by those who believe in creationism. It took a heck of a lot of modern science to get my dads prolapse mitral valve replaced, but his creationist doctor was able to stumble through it.

Of course, creationists aren't averse to using modern science, while simultaneously rejecting it.

I said you can't logically reject evolution without rejecting most of modern science. The key word is "logical," because creationism is irrational, and has nothing to do with logic.

187 wintercat  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 5:42:36pm

re: #177 Salamantis

Do you them think that anything, in principle, that students bring up in class should be discussed? What if they wanna discuss Holocaust denial, or Stalin admiration, or bestiality with housepets, or flat-earthism, or the efficacy of sacrificing goats to Satan? or initiating sex with teachers they think are hott? All of these belong in high school science classes about as much as does Disco Dewde creationism; that is, not at all.

Freedom of speech, including the freedom to spout unmitigated bullshit, is supposed to take place in the town square, not the high school classroom. That's the place for education.

Oh I see, in your mind discussing Creationism means advocating Creationism. Kind of black and white thinking there. I think discussing most of those topics would be worthwhile. Discussions of Stalinism go on in the classroom now. What is the problem? Are you suggesting that because Stalin was a brutal dictator that students should not talk about him? Perhaps they should never speak of Hitler either.

188 Jim D  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 5:56:01pm

re: #187 wintercat

Not in a science class.

189 Syrah  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:10:23pm

re: #15 looking closely

How do you know that?
There are fewer than 60 days left before the election.

From this at the Politico

In July, Obama spent $57 million — more than any prior month and more than the $51 million he collected that month. A large chunk of that cash went to the salaries of his expanding field operation.

His expenses for August were a bit higher because of the extensive advertising he aired that month — including a run of commercials during NBC’s broadcast of the Beijing Olympics.

More going out than coming in.

I don't know what he has in reserves, but it looks he may be reaching for the Red ink pen very soon, if not already.

190 WinterCat  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:11:18pm

re: #188 Jim D

Don't you think that some students who might have been raised in an environment where Creationism is accepted as truth might benefit from some critical thinking by way of a discussion of the ideas they have grown up with? It might open their minds if they actually had to compare and contrast the logic of science with the illogic of Creationism. I am suggesting that Creationism be dissected through rational discourse.

Again, I am not suggesting that Creationism be taught but I certainly don't think a school should start having panic attacks or firing teachers who allow such a discussion to go on in their classroom. I know the concern is that Islam is pushing Creationism in the classroom. But they are pushing that it be taught. I am not.

191 Naso Tang  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:14:15pm

re: #27 Wytnucls

I don't see why Creationism or ID couldn't be discussed in class, if pupils raise the issue. It shouldn't be presented as a scientific alternative to Evolution though, but just as a religious concept.

That's a fair thought, but clearly not thought through, which is why you don't "see".

Think about it a while and imagine a science teacher telling the fundies' kid that there is this concept of creation that conflicts with evidence, but it's OK to believe that as long as you pass the science test....

The kid is going to believe the parents or the teacher?

The kid is going to tel the teacher he/she is going to hell?

The kid is going to tell the parents that they are fools because the teacher proved it?

The kid is going to assume that adults don't know what the hell to teach and nothing is real.

192 Naso Tang  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:18:44pm

re: #179 Basho

I can see a situation where a student is being taught evolution in class and the kid has a problem because his/her parents taught him/her that evolution is false or whatnot. And the student brings it up. But the proper response is for the teacher to say "Let's discuss this after class or during our free-time". Talking about it in class is distracting and ultimately students will abuse the policy.

Bad choice. The teacher will then be accused by the parents of personally trying to subvert the kid's family beliefs, after hours (and who knows what other perversions might be suggested).

The only proper response is that this is a science class. You can fail it or pass it.

193 Naso Tang  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:25:49pm

re: #186 Charles

Of course, creationists aren't averse to using modern science, while simultaneously rejecting it.

I said you can't logically reject evolution without rejecting most of modern science. The key word is "logical," because creationism is irrational, and has nothing to do with logic.

Creationists don't use science in the literal sense, they only look for comments by scientists who happen to explain what they don't understand and then use that as proof that what they (creationists) claim to know, without proof, must be true.

194 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:27:04pm

re: #187 wintercat

Oh I see, in your mind discussing Creationism means advocating Creationism. Kind of black and white thinking there. I think discussing most of those topics would be worthwhile. Discussions of Stalinism go on in the classroom now. What is the problem? Are you suggesting that because Stalin was a brutal dictator that students should not talk about him? Perhaps they should never speak of Hitler either.

What I see happening is Disco Institute programmed memebots being sent into public high school science classes in order to hijack the discussion they create. It's called 'teaching the controversy', and it a known Disco Institute tactic:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Here is how it works in academia:

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing
forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes
biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that
requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

195 Naso Tang  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:27:28pm

looks like a slow thread here. Sorry for being late. I think I'll take a break and beer or two while the world catches up.

196 Jim D  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:30:50pm

re: #190 WinterCat

I think it is a waste of time to address nonscientific approaches to understanding the natural world in a science class. Time spent debunking the irrational takes away precious classroom time from studying real science.

It's also highly unlikely to be productive. Students (and probably some teachers too) will introduce all of the same tired DI talking points we've seen here and I doubt the average biology teacher has the time, patience and knowledge to rebut them properly.

197 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:34:01pm

re: #190 WinterCat

Don't you think that some students who might have been raised in an environment where Creationism is accepted as truth might benefit from some critical thinking by way of a discussion of the ideas they have grown up with? It might open their minds if they actually had to compare and contrast the logic of science with the illogic of Creationism. I am suggesting that Creationism be dissected through rational discourse.

Again, I am not suggesting that Creationism be taught but I certainly don't think a school should start having panic attacks or firing teachers who allow such a discussion to go on in their classroom. I know the concern is that Islam is pushing Creationism in the classroom. But they are pushing that it be taught. I am not.

Creationist kids have obviously already gotten the creationist take, either at home or at church. Public high school science classes should be teaching the science. I am in favor, however, of mandatory logic classes, and of the philosophical groundings of the scientific enterprise being taught in science class alongside the investigations, experiments, theories and discoveries themselves, so that students will have the tools with which to evaluate the competing claims themselves, and the empirical evidence, or lack of same, for them.

198 Basho  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:34:57pm

re: #196 Jim D

Agree completely. Voluntary reading lists seem like a way to cut through the nonsense quickly; all the people who don't care for the controversy don't have to read the books, and all those that do care or have problems with the material taught can read the books and form their own opinions.

199 Basho  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 6:38:36pm

re: #192 Naso Tang

Yeah I thought about that. Maybe my post at #198 addresses that. See? An intelligent debate seems to find problems and solutions quickly. Perhaps that model can be adopted by real-life education bureaucrats?

Hahaha! Hard to hold back the laughter on that one.

200 WinterCat  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 7:45:44pm

re: #197 Salamantis

Your point is well taken. I would go along with a philosophy course handling such discussions if the students so choose rather than having it take place in a science class.

201 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 8:21:58pm

re: #92 Lizard by the Bay

You quoted:

The materialist explanation of the creation has nothing to offer - if we came from nothing and go into nothing, then that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles. Evolution is a world-view that leads to futility. It’s no wonder people are dissatisfied with it.

Then commented:

What an odd thing to say. Does he think people believe in evolution because they're looking for a worldview they'd be satisfied with? People believe it because it's fact, numbskull!

I fully agree with you. In fact, Richard Dawkins made much the same point: that truth cannot be rejected on the grounds that one does not like how it makes one feel:

[Link: www.skeptic.com...]

Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth. I personally find the idea of cousinship to all living species positively agreeable, but neither my warmth toward it, nor the cringing of a creationist, has the slightest bearing on its truth.

The same could be said of political or moral objections to Darwinism. “Tell children they are nothing more than animals and they will behave like animals.” I do not for a moment accept that the conclusion follows from the premise. But even if it did, once again, a disagreeable consequence cannot undermine the truth of a premise. Some have said that Hitler founded his political philosophy on Darwinism. This is nonsense: doctrines of racial superiority in no way follow from natural selection, properly understood. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that a society run on Darwinian lines would be a very disagreeable society in which to live. But, yet again, the unpleasantness of a proposition has no bearing on its truth.

Huxley, George C. Williams, and other evolutionists have opposed Darwinism as a political and moral doctrine just as passionately as they have advocated its scientific truth. I count myself in that company. Science needs to understand natural selection as a force in nature, the better to oppose it as a normative force in politics.

Besides which, as Steven Pinker asserts, understanding ourselves better, by better understanding our evolutionary roots, could help us to become better persons; disillusionment can be a GOOD thing:

[Link: pinker.wjh.harvard.edu...]

I’ve suggested that the dominant theory of human
nature in modern intellectual life is based on the Blank
Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine, and
that these doctrines have been challenged by the sciences of
mind, brain, genes, and evolution. The challenges have also
been seen to threaten sacred moral values. But, in fact, that
doesn’t follow. On the contrary, I think a better understanding of
what makes us tick, and of our place in nature, can clarify those
values. This understanding shows that political equality does
not require sameness, but rather policies that treat people as individuals
with rights; that moral progress does not require that
the mind is free of selfish motives, only that it has other motives
to counteract them; that responsibility does not require that
behavior is uncaused, only that it responds to contingencies of
credit and blame; and that meaning in life does not require that
the process that shaped the brain have a purpose, only that the
brain itself have a purpose.

quote to be continued...

202 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 8:22:40pm

quote continuation:

Finally, I’ve argued that grounding values in a blank slate is a
mistake. It’s a mistake because it makes our values hostages to
fortune, implying that some day, discoveries from the field or lab
could make them obsolete. And it’s a mistake because it conceals
the downsides of denying human nature, including persecution
of the successful, totalitarian social engineering, an exaggeration
of the effects of the environment (such as in parenting
and the criminal justice system), a mystification of the rationale
behind responsibility, democracy, and morality, and the devaluating
of human life on Earth.

203 vbspurs  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 8:26:47pm
One reason why creationism is on the rise in Britain: the influx of Islamic immigrants, who join creationists in rejecting most of modern science.

Oh-hh. Daylight as to why certain people don't like Creationism to gain a foothold in the US. Well, if that's the case, I'm on board with that. Neither do I.

204 Naso Tang  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 8:29:27pm

re: #200 WinterCat

Your point is well taken. I would go along with a philosophy course handling such discussions if the students so choose rather than having it take place in a science class.


I don't think Sal said philosophy classes discussing irrational beliefs. Can you seriously imagine that having any significant result in high school kids mostly concerned with hormones?

The place to start with teaching logic is much younger, without, in the classroom, bringing in the confusions that some adults face. Let them come home after class and experience the contradictions first hand.....

205 Winslow  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 8:45:13pm

Please note in Salamantis' #201, the quote of Richard Dawkins. Here we have yet another example of an eminent evolutionary scientist routinely using the perfectly legitimate term "Darwinism."

206 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 8:51:45pm

re: #204 Naso Tang

I don't think Sal said philosophy classes discussing irrational beliefs. Can you seriously imagine that having any significant result in high school kids mostly concerned with hormones?

The place to start with teaching logic is much younger, without, in the classroom, bringing in the confusions that some adults face. Let them come home after class and experience the contradictions first hand.....

Creationism isn't philosophy; it's theology - a subsection of religiopn, which also isn't philosophy.

Cosmology isn't religious. Ontology isn't religious. And serious philosophers do not do metaphysics anymore; since meta means beyond, metaphysics is, by definition, the study of that which is beyond the empirical, physical world - and therefore not amenable to empirical verification or falsification. So there's nothing much that anyone can say about it one way or another than can't be opposed by an absolutely contradictory statement that also cannot be proven untrue. It is just uselessly spinning one's wheels; the philosophical equivalent of masturbation.

This is why philosophers these days instead go beneath rather than trying to go beyond, and study ontology; the fundamental, primordial underpinning grounds of our phenomenal world - the categories, realms, rules and relations without which the world would be, and appear, otherwise, rather than being and appearing as it in fact is and seems.

207 Throbert McGee  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 10:14:05pm

re: #206 Salamantis

And serious philosophers do not do metaphysics anymore; since meta means beyond, metaphysics is, by definition, the study of that which is beyond the empirical, physical world - and therefore not amenable to empirical verification or falsification. So there's nothing much that anyone can say about it one way or another than can't be opposed by an absolutely contradictory statement that also cannot be proven untrue. It is just uselessly spinning one's wheels; the philosophical equivalent of masturbation.

This is why philosophers these days instead go beneath rather than trying to go beyond, and study ontology; the fundamental, primordial underpinning grounds of our phenomenal world - the categories, realms, rules and relations without which the world would be, and appear, otherwise, rather than being and appearing as it in fact is and seems.

I love ya, sal, but your definition of "metaphysics" as a philosophical concern is wrong -- since "going beneath," to examine the "rules and relations" that govern our world, is also entirely within the traditional definition of metaphysics.

Also, using "masturbation" as a metaphorical way to emphasize the uselessness of an activity is (a) incredibly trite; (b) biologically and psychologically unfounded; and (c) rather typical of traditional Catholic moral theologians, who are obsessed with the idiotic notion that sexual pleasure is inherently worthless if not redeemed by "openness to procreation."

208 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 11:20:48pm

Ontology has historically been, and for some it still remains, along with theology and cosmology, a branch of metaphysics. However, outside of ontology and cosmology, any metaphysical speculation is currently considered to be not philosophy, but theology, while ontology and cosmology cannot in fact be considered divisions of metaphysics, because they are not meta, but indeeed quite physical. In fact, ontology and cosmology are seen as progressively drifting away from being philosophy and becoming science, and the entire division splitting up, with theology being permanently remaindered to religious studies. This would leave philosophy the fields of epistemology, or the theory of knowledge (the study of how we can know something to be true - the various logic are included here, as well as the philosophy of science), and axiology, or the theory of value (comprised of ethics - the study of what comprises the good, the fair and the just, and aesthetics - the study of what comprises the beautiful). Of course there are philosophies for just about every particular object of study; philosophies of language, philosophies of mind, philosophies of history, philosophies of politics, philosophies of economics, philosophies of comparative religion, etc., but the questions addressed within them are invariably either epistemological or axiological ones, or both.

Indeed mental masturbation can be fun; that's one of the reasons why people do crossword puzzles. But, unlike with crossword puzzles, nothing can even be proven to be solved or achieved or learned by means if it. It is sterile rather than fecund. Undoubtedly, though, there are true and false cosmologies, as, for instance, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't, and there is evidence, such as the background Big Bang echo radiation (not to mention it's universe-dating red-shift coefficient), and there are true and false ontologies, which makes the answers we receive from the Large Hadron Collider critical for Garrett Lisi's grand unified theory of everything (will we detect the elusive Higgs boson?).

209 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 16, 2008 11:34:33pm

I do want to make one further distinction; the various theologies are simply systematic statements of the presuppositional premises embraced by one religious system or another and the conclusions that can be logically derived from them, while the philosophy of comparative religion seeks to investigate religion itself as a phenomenon, and thus compares and contrasts the practices and tenets of the different religious systems in search of commonalities and divergences, collates them, then endeavors to construct theories that explain the data that they find. I recommend Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer and In Gods We Trust by by Scott Atran as good examples of the field.

210 Throbert McGee  Wed, Sep 17, 2008 1:41:07am

re: #208 Salamantis

ontology and cosmology cannot in fact be considered divisions of metaphysics, because they are not meta, but indeed quite physical

You might want to look up the origins of the word "metaphysics" -- in ancient collections of Aristotle's work, the "meta-" part did not mean "beyond physics" in the sense of transcending the physical world, but rather "covered in the chapters that come after the chapter(s) entitled Physics."

Really!

And although the meanings of words rest more on contemporary usage than on ancient etymology, I question whether you'd find a consensus of philosophers who'd support your apparent suggestion that "physics" and "metaphysics" are somehow mutually exclusive concerns.

At any rate, I can't see the rationale for this distinction:

any metaphysical speculation is currently considered to be not philosophy, but theology

It appears to me that the question of whether it's meaningful to speak of a "supernatural" realm distinct from the naturalistic universe indisputably belongs to metaphysics, and that all by itself makes theology a sub-field of philosophy.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Apple iTunes
Holiday Gift Guide - Save up to 45% on the seasons best!
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

The internet needs filters.


Music 160x600