Caught a showing of “Inherit the Wind” on cable. It is both amazing, and amazingly depressing, how timely the subject matter of that film and play is. As Spencer Tracy speaks passionately of a time when narrow-minded religious dogma will actually cause progress to be reversed, one considers that people in power are opposed to everything from stem cell research to a woman’s right to choose to global warming to…yes…Darwin’s theory.
Meantime creationists are trying to sneak Genesis back into the schoolroom through the notion of Intelligent Design, trying to position it as being as equally valid as Darwin, when of course all they’re really trying to do is put the Bible back in the classroom.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, progress is an illusion…and human progress doubly so.
PAD
(PS–Uh, guys…please don’t start telling me that the Scopes Monkey Trial was a set up by the ACLU and that local businessmen put Scopes up to it and that he probably didn’t even actually teach evolution. I know all that. None of it detracts from the fact that “Inherit the Wind” is a brilliant drama in its own right with a lot to say to modern thinking…or lack thereof.)
• 
I suppose that since evolution doesn’t exist according to ID (even though it has something ID lacks called evidence) that the next time one of these people become seriously ill they won’t go to the hospital or see a doctor, because ID doesn’t believe in that sort of thing because it is based on science, backed and up by evidence.
As I mentioned before, Paul Nelson is one of the more prominent people who support ID. He’s consistently held that ID does not have a theory yet to conduct a research program. Given that….why the hëll should we be teaching ID in anything below the college level?
And if you think ID isnt’ creationism, why did the writers of OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE simply do a cut and paste of “intelligent design” for “creationism” in their book? And why are so many ID arguements simply recycled creationism arguments…down to the same wording and use of phrases?
“our understanding of reality is incomplete. there are aspects of nature that we cannot currently explain, or possibly even comprehend. that doesn’t make those things supernatural.”
Actually..isn’t that pretty much the definiton of it?
“our understanding of reality is incomplete. there are aspects of nature that we cannot currently explain, or possibly even comprehend. that doesn’t make those things supernatural.”
Actually..isn’t that pretty much the definiton of it?
depends on the definition you go by. i’m taking the word pretty literally.
from dictionary.com
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
i’d go with definition two, but i’d argue for taking the word seem out of there. if something is truly supernatural, it would actually violate or go beyond natural forces, not just seem to.
so, going with my modification of definition two, or any of the other definitions, no, that doesn’t fit.
That’s not anti-science, that’s anti- animal cruelty. I’m not going to take the side of PETA, as I find most of their positions to be completely nuts, but do not mischaracterize their position as anti-science.
I have to completely disagree. I’ve had dealings with these kooks. They do far more than claim that a rat is a pig is a boy which, while nuts, is an opinion that one can legitimately have (assuming one is, as mentioned, nuts.) But they go further, claiming that not only is animal experimentation cruel, it also is bad science, that no invention or medicine has been discovered by animal experimentation and that, in fact, animal experimentation has actually held back medical research. They claim that anything that can be done with an animal can be done with tissue culture or computers. Since my skill when I was in bio research was in cell culturing I only WISH that were true, but it isn’t.
They are far far more hostile to real science than you think. I don’t know if they actually believe the crap they spew or if it just serves their agenda to pretend they believe it. And I don’t much care.
Also, Canadian law doesn’t ban payment of donors. What they appear to be trying to do (from reading the law itself) is preventing an industry of sperm and egg donation. People cannot sell their eggs and sperm, and people cannot offer to buy eggs and sperm for the profit of the donor. Donors are allowed to be reimbursed for expenses (and I’d wager that is a rather grey area).
That seems like hair splitting. Yes, you can pay for the taxi ride to the hospital but you can’t pay a woman for the not at all fun procedure of egg removal? How much research is going to be able to take place if we have to depend on women who are willing to do that for nothing? And what is so terrible about it anyway? This sort of thing plays right into the hands of those who want to paint pro-choice people as totally out of it–abortion is a fundamental right that must be protected at all costs but selling an egg to help an infertile couple get pregnant is somehow sick and wrong?
your points about Canada come completely out of nowhere.
If I misstated reality of Canadian law I apologize but what I’ve read indicates that A- they have banned the sale of eggs and sperm–reimbursing for expenses doesn’t cut it. B- the insertion of inheritable genes into embryos C- using sex selection (and how do they determine this? Unless a woman announces that she’s getting an abortion because her fetus is the “wrong” sex how would you know? And anyway, once you say that there are “wrong” reasons to get an abortion why stop there?) and D- human cloning is banned.
All of which seems far more damaging to science research than what we have in the USA.
As far as the whole ID vs evolution debate…I pretty much got exhausted arguing all this years ago. The arguments never change, just the packaging. Proponents of ID should, if they really believe that they are on the right track, hit the labs and start brainstorming ways to test and find evidence for their hypothesis (I’ll be generous and call it a hypothesis). If they are correct the truth will come out and fame and honor will be theirs forever, like the great men and women of science before them as well as the Iron Chefs. Forget trying to strong-arm some pitiful school board–do what it takes to walk across the stage in Stockholm and grab the Noble Prize, drop trouser, and invite the collected assembly to “kiss my God-fearing ášš”.
Personally I don’t think it will happen but if I were a believer in ID that’s the scenario I’d be shooting for.
No, Craig, my reading comprehension is just fine. I started with Luigi and generalized from there.
Luigi, did you read the book or just the table of contents online?
Bill: The point I’m making is that the lunatic fringe of the left, particularly when it comes to animal “rights” is NOT representative in any way of most people who are against animal cruelty. PETA is not PAWS, just like ELF is not the Sierra Club. You are comparing apples to kiwis here.
Knuck…Who’s PAWS? If PETA are eco-terrorists, is PAWS eco-manson-familyites or eco-protestors?
Proponents of ID should, if they really believe that they are on the right track, hit the labs and start brainstorming ways to test and find evidence for their hypothesis (I’ll be generous and call it a hypothesis). If they are correct the truth will come out and fame and honor will be theirs forever, like the great men and women of science before them as well as the Iron Chefs. Forget trying to strong-arm some pitiful school board–do what it takes to walk across the stage in Stockholm and grab the Noble Prize, drop trouser, and invite the collected assembly to “kiss my God-fearing ášš”.
Amen [irony intentional].
That’s the hard way, that’s the right way, and that’s the ONLY way that ID can be presented in school as science….when it DOES science.
Robbnn….don’t be insulting. If YOU understand the arguments, and if they’re valid, you can handle the defense yourself. For example, if ID is valid science, where are the peer reviewed research papers and research programs?
Scav: Neither. PAWS is basically an animal welfare agency (you know, adopts out cats, dogs, iguanas, etc.) that has come out publicly against animal testing. PETA, on the other hand, has made very public their opposition in the manner as suggested by Bill. Sort of the Sinn Fein to groups like the Animal Liberation Front.
Knuckles, I appreciate that pETA is way on the fringe of even the animal rights crowd.n I’, not sure what PAWS you are talking about (there are many) but if they advocate pets they are already on PETA’s enemy list (pets are like slaves, you see).
If the PAWS you speak of is the progressive animal wlefare society, their position is as follows–PAWS is opposed to the use, abuse and exploitation of animals for human benefit, therefore PAWS is opposed to the use of animals for both cosmetic testing and medical testing and research. So saying they are against animal testing is accurate but incomplete. Lots of folks might be willing to forego testing cosmetics on rabbits. Outlawing using mice to test AIDS vaccines…not so much.
They may not use PETA’s methods but the chilling effect on science would be the same. In some ways the animal rights arguments remind me of the creationist crowd. They find a few scientists who support them but ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of researchers advocate the use of animal research.
This is perhaps a debate for another time but I think I am on very safe ground when I suggest that the loss of animal test subjects would set back science to a degree vastly beyond what creationism could ever do.
By the way, I didn’t mean my comments above to be a swipe at Canada, especially on their holiday. Happy Thanksgiving!
“PAWS is opposed to the use, abuse and exploitation of animals for human benefit, therefore PAWS is opposed to the use of animals for both cosmetic testing and medical testing and research.”
Which is what I said above. It’s not an unreasonable position for an organization such as theirs to have. However, they do not (to my knowledge) actively support legislation to ban animal testing (like that would ever pass, anyway) nor do the PAWSWAT team go out firebombing Mary Kay and bioresearch labs as groups like PETA and ALF do. If they did, a very large part of Seattle would be toast (ELF actually firebombed the UW’s botanical library back in 2001).
Knuckles,
Ok, I don’t want to be splitting hairs here but…
I’m not going to take the side of PETA, as I find most of their positions to be completely nuts, but do not mischaracterize their position as anti-science.
You were the one who brought up PETA and said that they are not anti-science. They are. Totally. It may be in the service of their larger goal but they are anti-science.
Other animal rights groups may or may not be. It depends. If they say that they oppose animal experimentation because they are against it, dámņ the consequences–well, I disagree but I can respect that. If they lie about the advances in science that were made possible by animal experimentation, if they lie about how there are better alternatives available, if they lie about how getting rid of animal research will make advances come even faster than before–they are anti-science.
Again, I don’t know which of the many PAWS organizations we are talking about here. The Progressive Animal Welfare Society has a link to PETA as one of their sites promoting vegetarianism…which is like someone giving a link to Operation Rescue as a pro-adoption group. The only other thing I could find was a pro-animal research site that claims The Progressive Animal Welfare Society, an animal rights organization, targeted one of the researchers involved in the effort to study in-utero transmission of simian immunodeficiency virus in macaque monkeys, and managed to halt the research that was a precursor to the use of AZT to block HIV transmission from human mothers to their babies. PAWS called the work redundant. I cannot verify the accuracy of this. The PAWS site does not seem terribly extreme on the issue.
Personally I hate to see the Animal Welfare groups aligned in any way with the PETA crowd. It will end up hurting humans and animals, humans because of the harm it does to scientific advances and animals because it will make people like myself very reluctant to donate to animal welfare groups without assurances that I won’t end up regretting it.
As for the rest of your post…you don’t have to bomb science labs to be anti-science. Creationists aren’t bombing my classroom but I have no problem labeling many of them as anti-science. Anyone that advocates laws against science research under false presences, even if they are unlikely to pass, deserves the same label.
ELF also burned a WSU botanical research field in Puyallup, apparently under the impression they were growing gengineered crops. In fact, they were growing a new blackberry hybrid, created by time-honored techniques like grafting.
If you really want to watch a Washingtonian boil, though, mention Earth First! That’s the organization that likes to spike trees to stop logging (which tends to injure or kill the loggers, when the chain on the saw breaks). They’re also infamous for an incident in the ’70s, when at least one of their number decided that the best way to protect Earth was to plant a pipe bomb in a gate on one of the forest access roads. It would seem that this misguided soul thought that the bomb would deter harvesting of the trees. In the event, however, it detonated when a Forest Service employee opened the gate, while patrolling for anyone harvesting trees illegally…
On a more humorous front, there’s Greenpeace. When the US Navy was sending some of the first Ohio-class nuclear missile submarines to the Bangor base in Washington, Greenpeace attempted to blockade the passage with a flotilla of Zodiacs and similar small craft. The captain saw the blockade ahead, ordered a dive – and the sub glided smoothly under the flotilla, surfacing on the far side. I guess the “experts” who advised Greenpeace about how terrible the Ohio-class boomers were, forgot to tell them why they’re called “submarines”. 🙂
Robbnn: Luigi, did you read the book or just the table of contents online?
Luigi Novi: I read the descriptions of the book at Amazon.com, which clearly indicates that it uses the exact same debunked arguments that every other creationist uses, some of which I mentioned above.
Robbnn: Luigi, did you read the book or just the table of contents online?
Luigi Novi: I read the descriptions of the book at Amazon.com, which clearly indicate that it uses the exact same debunked arguments that every other creationist uses, some of which I mentioned above.
Here is an intersting article on the question of abortion from a popular, philosophical and legal point of view.
About Intelligence Design — a thought experiment:
Let’s assume that evolution is wrong for the sake of argument. We’re back to square one as far as explaining biological phenomena. If we resume the search for an explanation in the realm of natural sciences, i.e. in nature (not faith, the bible etc.), all we could say is that nature is complex. Refering to a creator would be pointless, since it tells us nothing about the mechanism that causes the phenomena in question, nothing about the said creator or the way he works.
Now the ID supporter can complain that natural sciences seek only mechanistic explanations, not ones involving intelligences. That’s why the idea of inteligence designers will never be considered real science. But even if we generously allow the possibility of an explanation refering to the possible influence of intelligences (that’s the way we explain pyramids, cathedrals and watches for example), he still couldn’t tell us anything valuable about the designer or the designing mechanism, while archeologists and historians can tell you about pyramid and cathedral builders.
The creationist can then complain that we are ignoring an important historical source, the bible. But then, if we study the bible in a scientific way (that is without faith that it is the world of God), than it is not a very good source for biological information.
The last option of the creationist is to say that there are things beyond our understanding of nature — supernatural. But supernatural can mean one of two things. (a) aspects of nature that can be discovered and explained scientifically and rationally but have not so far because of the flaws of our theories or limitation of our technologies. In which case we can only wait for science to learn about them in the future. (b) supernatural in the sense of miraculous, going beyond the way the natural world works. In which case the explanation goes beyond science, and cannot be explained in rational terms, and has therefore no room in science classes.
In short, even if evolution was not a sufficient explanation for the way living organisms developed, talking about an intelligent designer would be as meaningful as saying that they were designed by aliens or sorcerers.
The classic fallacy that informs the “logic” of the Intelligent Design group is to assume that the end result of a long chain of random operations was, indeed, the intended result of a chain of guided events, and is, also, the only possible result.
That is, they look at the end result (themselves) which their religion teaches them is the imazge of God, and aver that such a thing could not happen due to Mere Random Chance.
That the human shape is the Image of God and no other shape is possible for the Highest Being on the Food Chain.
Of course, since no-one would (i hope) seriously argue that man is, indeed, the exact *physical* image of God, but rather that the “our own image” means a reasoning being capable of intelligently understandig hs/its surroundings, it’s my opinion/contention that, assuming God exists, that we would still be the “image of god” if we were seventeen-foot purple-and-pink spotted rhinoceroids with a fifty-foot wingspan, so long as we were reasoning, intelligent etc.
And exponents of creationism (or, “Intelligenr Design”, as they’d call it to claim it was science) would say that nothing so wonderful and complex as the ourselves could have possibly come about by Mere Chance — that the Big Snorklewhacker In The Sky, between sessions bugging that weird-looking creature, Binkley, must have Intelligently Designed us.
Intelligent Design is a refuge for people who can either not accept or parse an intelligent logical argument, and are scared of the fact that it’s a big Universe, it’s real strange, and it really doesn’t give one single very small fraction of a part of a miniscule dámņ whether one irritating race on one insignificant mudball in a thoroughly undistinguished galaxy lives or dies.
Once you accept that fact, though, you know, it’s fun trying to figure out how the Universe works and maybe — just maybe — actually accomplishing something bigger and grander than just infesting a sigle small mudball.
Maybe a few hundred mudballs…
Here’s the issue.
Intelligent Design is a theory that current scientific methods cannot yet prove. And may never be able to. And in fact, current scientific methods actually DISprove it. It’s like someone coming along and saying the force that keeps us all glued to the earth is in fact a form of glue, which we currently have no way of measuring, but it’s there. While science tells us that gravity is in fact some form of matter attraction caused by superdense bodies. We don’t fully understand yet how that works, but scientific proofs have told us that the statement is true. And that the undetectable glue theory is in fact false.
Creationists have adopted ID because it allows them to debunk the idea of evolution. You can’t have a scientific debate between a creationist and a scientist on evolution: creationism is an idea of faith, not science. Evolution starts with a series of hypothosis, and works through the observable and measurable evidence of FACT to rework and refine that hypothosis. The Creationist starts with the faith that the Bible contains a factually true statement about the origins of the world, then goes home, has dinner with the wife and kids, watches some TV, heads to bed, gets up in the morning and shakes his head at the silly scientist that has stayed up all night studying his bones and fossils and missed the latest episode of Lost.
The only debate you can have between a scientist on evolution and creationism is a philosophical one, because the creationist isn’t intersted in the scientific method. Literal creationists have the hardest time, because science tells them that their faith is wrong…that the Earth is far older than 14,000 years, that dinosaurs did not live with man in Eden, and that the unisverse did not begin with a massive voice-over of “Let Ther Be Light…”
The biggest mistake ID makes, aside from claiming to be good science, is that evolution says that life is the way it is because of some random happenstance. Evolution says nothing about why things happen, only that they do happen. Science doesn’t tell us WHY the first protiens combined to form those rudimentary life forms, only that it probably DID happen. It is a fallacy, so far as I know, to claim that science or evolution makes any claim as to the forces behind what we observe, but it is a fallacy that is essential for the ID theory to remain valid in the scientific landscape.
Actually, Bill, what I intended to say was that MOST anti-animal cruelty groups are NOT anti-science. I had intended to highlight PETA as one that is. It’s what I like to call “bad writing”.
As for the rest of your post…you don’t have to bomb science labs to be anti-science. Creationists aren’t bombing my classroom but I have no problem labeling many of them as anti-science. Anyone that advocates laws against science research under false presences, even if they are unlikely to pass, deserves the same label.
I’m not saying you do. I agree with you wholeheartedly that Creationists (I’d also argue that they are, in fact, intellectually carpet bombing the classrooms, but that’s a different subject altogether) are anti-science. It appears to me that our definitions of what constitutes “anti-science” are just a bit different (kind of like Leviathan’s definition of science fiction).
My issue with ID is the notion that it deserves equal footing with evolution. Sorry, it doesn’t. It took the theory of evolution decades of research and testing before it was commonly accepted as the most likely theory. ID hasn’t any such background. If people want to teach ID, fine. Do it in a Christian school. Offer it as a liberal arts course in college. But don’t pretend it is science, as the methods employed to “prove” the theory are anything but scientific.
True science doesn’t need a school board action to get it taught in the classroom. That’s the function of peer review…to validate the claims and conclusions drawn from science. The fact that the only reason intelligent design is being discussed in a science class is because the school board said so should tell anyone all they need to know about the validity of ID as a scientifically verifiable idea.
True science doesn’t need a school board action to get it taught in the classroom.
That’s a great statement, Bobb, and very, very true (in my opinion).
In 1995 while I was living in Kansas City, I wanted to see “Inherit the Wind” (I hadn’t seen the film for some time). So I went to my local Blockbuster and searched but couldn’t find the video.
I asked a clerk if their copies were out and was informed that Blockbuster did NOT carry the film. He told me that the movie did not fit Blockbusters’ criteria of the kind of films they felt were proper to rent to it’s customers.
Sure, and the 30 copies of “Porky’s” did.
“I sat through every filthy frame of that movie. Twice.”
Is it sad that of all the things from Porky’s that I could remebmer, that’s the one that sticks out the most?
You know, everybody seems to have quickly forgotten an important piece of evidence in the evolution vs ID debate:
George W. Bush.
He proves that neither theory is true. 🙂
I don’t know, Craig.
The fact that we sometimes have people pop up who are such obvious victims of throw back traits & genetics may actually go a long way at helping to back evolution here. Seeing George in action makes it much easier for me to believe that we came from some chimp like creature a long time ago.
There’s a “missing link” comment here that I just feel I’m above making.
There’s a “missing link” comment here that I just feel I’m above making.
*chuckle* Might take a few links to find the path between Bush and his ancestors.
Even worse, is that Bush Sr and Jeb seem to actually have a pretty good level of intelligence.
So maybe it’s just that evolution does not account for an alkie, coke-head somehow surviving such “youthful indiscretions”.
FYI….
A UMinnesota biology prof. comments on Behe’s talks:
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/10/10/65535
Wonderful article, Roger. 🙂
Think it gives a new meaning to the term BS detector…..
[b]I asked a clerk if their copies were out and was informed that Blockbuster did NOT carry the film. He told me that the movie did not fit Blockbusters’ criteria of the kind of films they felt were proper to rent to it’s customers.[/b]
I believe Blockbuster is owned by the Waltons, the “good christian family” that owned the small town buisness killing Wal-Mart. So go figure why such a vile movie would be availible to rent.
Ðámņ Dirty apes…
I believe Blockbuster is owned by the Waltons, the “good christian family” that owned the small town buisness killing Wal-Mart. So go figure why such a vile movie would be availible to rent.
According to Blockbuster’s website, they were aquired by Viacom in 1995.
And their founder wasn’t a Walton either.
>And their founder wasn’t a Walton either.
I dunno, with the way that my local Blockbuster is run and the people employed there, I wouldn’t blink if grampa or Ellie May walked out of the back office.
http://www.ncseweb.org/
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer
http://www.nas.edu/
Out of curiosity, I just called three Blockbuster stores near where I live. None of them carry _Inherit the Wind_. The clerk at the first store, just a few blocks away from home, told me that they used to carry it on video; the clerk at the second store simply said his store didn’t carry it.
When I called the third store, and got the same, “we don’t carry it” answer from the woman who answered the phone, I asked if she knew why- that I’d now tried three stores. Her answer was that A) it was only released on DVD three years ago; and B) that there’s a _lot_ of stuff released on DVD, and they can’t stock it all right away; but that C), they_would_ be carrying it at some point. She seemed pretty confident about that last point.
For what it’s worth, she also seemed to know the movie, volunteering, “with Spencer Tracy?” The other two clerks didn’t say anything to indicate whether they were familiar with the film.
So, of the three stores I called, one had carried the movie at one time; another expected they would be carrying it in the future; and the third didn’t give any indication one way or another.
So, perhaps it was just a particular Blockbuster store in Kansas City that didn’t carry _Inherit the Wind_, rather than a company-wide ban of the film. At least one store in Michigan has carried it, and it’s currently available through Blockbuster online.
Rick
I wouldn’t blink if grampa or Ellie May walked out of the back office
Ellie May is a Clampett and the Walton that he was referring to was the Sam Walton family not the TV Waltons.
Oops on rhe first and I didn’t miss that fact on the second.
I remember a story my mom told me about when she was in school in the ’40s. Priest/teacher up in the front of the class talking about God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, so my mom, ever the curious one, asked the ubiquitous question, “Who was God the Father’s Father?” Never did get an answer. Other than the equally ubiquitous “D’oh!”
My big problem with ID being taught in school is a question of faith. No, not what you’re thinking. Kids are in the class, teacher is up there talking about ID, the kids are going to have questions, which from everything I’ve read about ID, the course materials are ill-equipped to answer, the kids still have their questions and then they start to think that maybe the rest of what the teachers have been saying over the years doesn’t have any solid basis either and they decide to just stop learning altogether.
One last thing-to indestructibleman (and no this isn’t for stealing my schtick because I’M the indestructible one and I have the windshield pieces in my face and the car pictures to prove it) Is it that you don’t accept the supernatural because you believe that nothing is supernatural and we just don’t have the proof yet, or is it more material If I Can’t Eat It Or Kill It Or Carve My Initials In It Doesn’t Exsist?
[i]Is it that you don’t accept the supernatural because you believe that nothing is supernatural and we just don’t have the proof yet, or is it more material If I Can’t Eat It Or Kill It Or Carve My Initials In It Doesn’t Exsist?[/i]
it’s the former and not the latter.
btw, i’ve been hit by a car as a pedestrian (rode on the hood for a good 20 yards) and run my motorcycle into an oncoming van. both without sustaining more than a scratch.
“My big problem with ID being taught in school is a question of faith. No, not what you’re thinking. Kids are in the class, teacher is up there talking about ID, the kids are going to have questions, which from everything I’ve read about ID, the course materials are ill-equipped to answer, the kids still have their questions and then they start to think that maybe the rest of what the teachers have been saying over the years doesn’t have any solid basis either and they decide to just stop learning altogether.”
This a good point, and why you don’t want to bring up ID in SCIENCE CLASS. Science is all about proofs…the things you learn, the experiments you do, all go toward proving that what you read is verifiable. It’s part and parcel with the process. To introduce, as science, something that scientific methods cannot observe, cannot measure, cannot prove or disprove, calls into question all the other things you’re teaching as SCIENCE.
When the proponents of ID can start publishing work ready for peer-review, and that can stand up to the scrutiny of peer review, then we can start introducing it into our science classes.
Blockbuster’s previous owner was Harry Wayne Huizenga, who bought the company from David Cook. Huizenga owns the Miami Dolphins and the Florida Panthers. He also used to own the Florida Marlins.
He sold the company to Viacom years ago and, while the company has done to the local video rental places what Sam Walton has done to the local drugstores, Blockbuster has never had a connection to Wal-Mart.
I’m wondering what progress can be found in Inherit The Windo or what progress was moved against?
Was it all just pitting one religion against another?
Science is all about proofs
Substitute “evidence” for “proofs” and you got it. Proof is for math, not science…in science, you just accumulate so much evidence that it would be foolhardy to withhold agreement.
[Not that there aren’t a lot of foolish people in this country…]
I’ll be willing to accept that the definition of science can be changed to include ID if they would be willing to accept the definition of marriage can be changed to include people who marry a same-sex partner.
No deal. The latter is a societal norm which (IMO) is gradually going to change over time anyway. The former is fundamentally at odds with the nature of science, and taking up class time already at a premium with something that’s not science.
So sorry, no deal. The losses do not justify the gains. 🙂
And from our friendly colorful arachnid…
Was it all just pitting one religion against another?
Scientific theories aren’t religions. Sorry to burst yer bubble.
TWL
I get irritated in these discussions at folks who try to treat science and religion as equivalents. They’re not. They’re tools…one for the spiritual world, one for the material world. Why in heavens name would you want to use one tool for both worlds? There just aint a fit….
Because, Roger, this is Bush’s word and anything that doesn’t point to a 100% literal interpretation of the account in Genesis is the mark of Satan.
I live in Harrisburg, PA. This is where the federal court hearing the Dover case is located and I am sick to death of people trying to convince me that science is just another kind of faith or that they’re just trying to offer an alternative view. They’re not. If you look at the statements they’re making (one of the Dover school board members said that putting ID in the classroom was “the least they could do for Jesus”), their true motive is to push us all towards theocracy.
Wow. Den, was that comment made inside or outside the courtroom? Because it’s hard to imagine any more clear evidence that some governmental body is attempting to put their religon’s stamp on education.
Bobb, go to
http://aclupa.blogspot.com
And you’ll get all sorts of summaries, transcripts and jaw droppingly stoopid(tm) things allegedly said by the Dover school board (although the Kansas Board of education gives them a run for their money; one of THEIR experts was complaining about “science getting in the way of education.”).
I hear ya, Den. And I get a sinking feeling that Bush nominated a creationist for the Supreme Court; if Dover appeals it all the way up, we may all rue the day that those bozos thought up intelligent design. If you thought American education was bad before….