| |
|  |  |
| Discussion: Charles Darwin Linz, broadly I believe I resonate. Hume is generous to educate, but do you seek to obfuscate to discriminate? ;) >>By planet ear Playful Planet poem proves publicly puzzling posters poise perhaps? >>By planet ear like evolution I hold no intent or ethic on any of my inferences, its purely necessary function >>By LINZ OF ASTRA Then why post at all? >>By planet ear it doesn't come at a cost at all, all from my homeo-box >>By LINZ OF ASTRA As not to post doesn`t come at a cost at all ... Difference really is that posting is usually related at a ceartan level to our personal ammusement, and it`s time consuming...so that makes me quite sure that there must be some inner motive for posting, which you haven`t be willing (or able???) to share linz.. Anyway..I`m curious to find out what is the point you are trying to make???? From this distance it appears to me as a load of contemplative thoughts without true meaning , compared to Hume who was very much clear with expressing his opinions and believes.. >>By Jasmina I’m a bit uncomfortable debating dominance in terms of the elite/shouldn’t be allowed to breed regardless of how “weak”. There’s no science behind that only personal opinion from my understanding on what is written, although correct me if I’m talking out of turn or have misunderstood. The perfect human race is one ideal best left in the archives. If you breed, you’re successful. From my point of view it’s the subtle behaviours that produce the strongest humans – strength is not entirely physical it doesn’t need to be, we’re at the top of the food chain. Although feel free to disagree. Human evolution is undoubtedly down to nurture, and to my mind it’s our most endearing feature – what other species puts this amount of time and effort into their offspring, more to the point what species needs to because they develop so damn slowly. Bethan >>By B.A.B.E.S Interesting turn of events here in the US........ On the same day (Nov 8, aka Election Day), two things happened: 1) the Kansas Board of Education approved a new curriculum that would "cast doubt" on the theory of evolution and 2) every member of the school board in Dover, PA that was up for re-election was voted out. Incidentally (?) this is the same school board that passed a policy last year requiring high school students to hear a prepared statement on the merits of Intelligent Design prior to learning about evolution in class. Hmmmmm....... A little background- this is the second time Kansas has tried to put these new standards in place. Following the first attempt in 1999, I believe several members were booted out as well. The Board (at that point made up of Democrat and moderate Republicans) then reinstated evolution to its proper place in early 2001. Following 9/11, conservative Republicans were voted back in over the span of a few years and have now re-defined the word "Science" (no, I am not making this up) so that it is not limited to natural explanations of phenomena. Methinks many of the Kansas board members will be out of jobs come next election........ >>By Majorette I am sickened by the attack and re-defining of science in this country by the behind the scenes faith-based groups. I appreciate the biology teachers in Kansas who have already stated that they will not advocate this backwards thinking and will not diminish a solid scientific theory such as the theory of evolution. Those board members have an agenda that considers nothing of real science, and that is an extremely dangerous game to play. I only hope that Majorette's discovery turns out to be a trend that works against those wish to gain political clout via an afront to the life sciences. >>By Hume Ungus <<Majorette's discovery>> Wish I could take credit for it, but it's all over the papers here. I am merely the messenger. Apparently I'm not the only one who finds this stuff interesting. How 'bout that! ;-) >>By Majorette Indeed I agree that the "ideal human race" through any kind of tinkering with individuals rights to procreate is not a path I would advocate. Altho we've yet to hear a clearer response from CZ as to what precisely he is advocating I suspect that topic can be safely left behind for the moment.....I hope my tone on the matter wasn't misread. I suspect his primary concerns may be more to do with economics and a libertarian politics, but like other posters here I am reticent to put words into anyones' mouth...... At present I don't watch TV but I was startled to receive an email newsletter from channel 4 here in the UK with the following "taster" for an item in last nights show: "Was the world made in seven days? ================================= We have a report on the new creationist theme park in Kentucky. It was built thanks to $25m and aims to prove that evolution was a nonsense and that God created everything in less than a week." It went on to add "It would all be jolly funny if it weren't so serious. The thoughts enshrines in the theme park are part and parcel of the thinking of many in the Bush administration who now have their hands on the levers of power...." I am in some senses pleased that UK media can add a comment such as that at present without fear of retribution from a powerful "Creation is Science" lobby, altho sadly I am left speculating how long that will remain the case....... Returning to my more ironic tone I'd like to ask if bible publishers will be forced to add a note to the effect that there are alternative and widely respected views (both scientific and theological) regarding the literal accuracy and interpretation of the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis? ;) >>By planet ear An anti-evolution theme park! Let's hope that the designers at least accept the laws of physics. >>By Hume Ungus As regards a rollercoaster? Maybe there's some natural selection going on right there...... ;) >>By planet ear Are they also planning to complete the project in 6 days and add a few verses to the Pentateuch? ;) >>By planet ear Planet ear that's mad - I did a google and came up with the good old Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/ 01/02/weden02.xml& sSheet=/news/2005/01/02/ ixworld.html And to be fair an American article too. http://www.dallasnews.com/ sharedcontent/ dws/news/nation/stories/DN- dinocreatedog_02nat.ART. State.Bulldog. 41ff027.html Hard returns as normal (sorry there are so many!) Vegetarian dinosaurs until Adam and Eve sinned I kid you not.... >>By B.A.B.E.S Thanks Babes Actually I find it all rather scary try http://www.answersingenesis.org which seems to be the homepage of the organisation behind the "theme park" (for those familiar with Cockney slang "Ah couldn't Adam an' Eve me eyes" ;) ) >>By planet ear a truly terrifying example of propaganda (GODaganda?) aimed at children: http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/ I found the dialogue with Habu the Hindu elephant ("how many gods do you have, Habu?" his cartoon response: "I don't know! I lost count!") most offensive. The ego involved in dismissing Darwin's theories only serves in reinforcing an evolutionist's beliefs. Jesus is a zombie! He was killed and brought back to life! If I felt any religious inclinations, I would not choose to worship the Lord of the Undead. Or (H)is reanimator. >>By trollop23 <<An anti-evolution theme park! Let's hope that the designers at least accept the laws of physics.>> Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha! *ahem* And just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder, here's a follow-up to the Dover, Pennsylvania school board story, in which all 8 ID proponents lost their re-elections. Apparently, Dover residents have been put on notice by TV evangelist Pat Robertson NOT to call upon God, if disaster should strike their area since they "voted God out" of their town. He also says, "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them." LOL! You really ought to read this article, it's quite fantastic. Find it at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_us/ robertson_evolution;_ylt=AotSpIDZeqm4dtLl3DLpG ghg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- My favorite parts? The last two lines: "Robertson made headlines this summer when he called on his daily show for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." >>By Majorette I haven’t been to the States in a couple of years but recently having a couple of trips over there and another to the capital soon I’m amazed at the difference since I was last there. Things seemed to be more black and white than I remembered. Everything has a right and a wrong answer, and there is no in-between, or maybe I just met the wrong people!! Just a Brit’s observation – you Americans can then point out the error of my observation. The answers in genesis link was very interesting I have only scanned the parts that interested me so far. This argument will rumble on for all eternity because we’re all convinced we’re right. Bethan >>By B.A.B.E.S It seems this discussion has rambled away from Darwin per se recently, but it is interesting to read about the current attempts by the religious right to revert to pre-science views of life on Earth. Soon enough, the planet will be declared flat again and positionned firmly at the center of the universe, where, for the faithful, it has been the whole time... I know, nobody says the Earth is flat, people agree on certain facts! There is a huge problem with this view, of course: if you admit that science was right when proving the Earth is a sphere (more or less) revolving around the Sun, then why pretend it's wrong about life's evolution? Too bad nobody from Kansas seems to read this discussion... >>By Noudjali Finally, after years of selfless service to the one and true lord, Pat Robertson has reached God status. I'm curious whether or not God was ready to promote him or if events here on Earth simply couldn't wait any longer. After all, rejecting a school board's attempt to destroy science is a sign that God is loosing His grip. On behalf of myself, Pat, and all good folks who know the Lord, may the evil citizens of Dover burn in hell forever. >>By Hume Ungus Hume! I feel your irony level may be little high today ;) I wanted to place a bet on Pat Robertson being struck by divinely engineered lightning but then wondered if gambling such an event would be ethical or not ;) Anyone got a view? >>By planet ear That would be a losing bet if only for a lack of divinity! Yes, the irony may be a bit high, but humor is my only way to manage my feelings concerning Robertson. The guy is a total nutjob. What scared me was the interviews of some (and certainly not a majority) of the Dover townsfolk who actually agreed with the comments. Does God work on a group level? Or does the faithful heart in the midst of heathens and the morally corrupt get spared? It seems like there would be no point at all in having such faith if everyone else can ruin it for you. >>By Hume Ungus "It seems like there would be no point at all in having such faith if everyone else can ruin it for you" It would encourage proselytism pretty effectively though wouldn't it? ;) (Gosh aren't I the naughty cynic ;) ) >>By planet ear One can get a doctorate in the study of supernatural phenomena, chemistry, theology, physics, etc. What if the evolutionists put forward the idea of "faith" being lumped in with other ideologies that might be construed as supernatural? Do angels leave trails of ectoplasm? Are their any records of people swearing they were abducted by Gabriel? The coolest mockery of the Pro-Intelligent Design faction: http://www.venganza.org/index.htm All Hail His Noodly Might!! Pasta Deification! O Holy Italian Dinner! >>By trollop23 On a slightly related note to the last post, scientists are beginning to develop explanations for the common ghost experiences that so many people report having. Most of the current evidence suggests that these experience correlate, and are probably caused by, the interaction of brains andelectrical devices in the house or area of experience. I really love the demystification of such experiences, especially when the previous and popular explanation was of the supernatural type. I am reading an excellent (and probably somewhat outdated) book by Daniel C. Dennet called "Consciousness Explained." The first part of the book deals with the question of whether or not we should attempt to demystify consciousness, or just leave it up in the air and unscathed by science. He counters Wordsworth's belief that science "murders to dissect." Dennet, as well as most scientists, would argue that science doesn't diminish the so-called beauty of a phenomenon, but heightens its beauty in the mind's eye by teaching us a better way to think about it. This basic belief, that science enlightens, really seems to work on all levels of natural investigation, so that we should never fear losing that gripping sense of mystery surrounding that for which we have no good explanation. >>By Hume Ungus Interesting commentary in todays Guardian newspaper in the UK... any US citizens have view maybe? http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/ story/0,3604,1651102,00.html >>By planet ear For the UK contingent - I missed this on Sunday and since I'm flying out of the UK on Friday will miss the rest of them too but Prof Robert Winston is looking at religion and science. BBC link below. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/ pressreleases/stories/2005/ 11_november/09/god.shtml Bethan >>By B.A.B.E.S Finally, a U.S. court of law has declared that the 'intelligent design' crowd was illegally trying to bring religion back in the classroom. Darwin's work prevails, as any verified and shared knowledge about the nature of things should. Science is not fighting religion, it's been providing reasons not to fight all along... >>By Noudjali I have just read this discussion thread and my only regret is that I discovered it so late. There are too many entries that I'd like to comment on so I'll just stick to a couple of brief observations: I suspect a driver for the controversy of evolution vs creationism is a religious dogma that insists on the text of the bible (or other eligious text) containing literal truth. Many christians (and other people of faith) have no problem with evolution (or with any other scientific theory) as their beliefs are not dependant on every detail in the bible (or their chosen religious text) being literally true. Then again most christians (or other relgious people) I have met don't feel the need to for me to accept that everything they believe is objectively true (admittedly I don't run into religious fundamentalists that often). ID is just an attempt to bring some semblance of credibility to the tired old fallacy of creationism (after all - who seriously believes anymore that the earth was created in 7 days?) I suspect that engaging in serious debate is counter-productive as ID is only likely to gain in stature by doing so. Treat it as you would any other creation myth (or article of faith): how many scientists feel the need to refute Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny for example? I recently read 'Evolution's Captain' by Peter Nichols which is primarily a biography of the Captain of the Beagle during Darwin's voyage. It is noteworthy that Captain Fitzroy shared a similar viewpoint to beenieweenie - it's all too damn complex for it all just to have happened by itself (he also argued passionately against specisation[sic]). While less detailed than Darwin's own account of the voyage the author provides some interesting insights into the events (and the culture) that shaped the writing of Origin of the Species. It might have been worthwhile if some of the contributors above had actually read the discussion guidelines rather than merely checking the box ...but...HEY... it is one hell of a thread!!!! >>By Sarcophilus |