Re: The Reasonable Minority

On Jan 2, 9:51 am, SeppoP <seppo_pietikai...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
chris thompson wrote:

Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 2, 5:40�am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:34 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 1, 3:10 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 3:09 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 1:00 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 11:30 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 9:56 am, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:06:56 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<8f0515d2-4858-49d5-9e82-5be8b27b4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
[snip]
So we know that doing real science, good scientific outcomes right
here in America absent any evolution education and in a society
dominated by theism, creationism, and �religious instruction in public
schools.
What religious instruction in public schools are you talking about?
Wouldn't that violate the First Amendment?
[snip]
The first 100 years in the country were pre-evolution, certainly
Darwin, and schools were replete with Christian based instruction,
approaches to learning, both public and private, prayer...etc. Yet
science was an active disclipline with significant successes by
accomplished people.
And those practices have been found to be unconstitutional, through
due process of law, in the way the Founders intended the government to
work. Why should there be christian education in public school? Why
not Arapahoe, Bantu, Cherokee, and Druidic too? And if we have
christian education, what flavor of christian? Catholic or protestant?
If protestant, do we get Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, or what?
Do you even realize this sort of thing was the cause of millions of
people getting killed in some of the most brutal warfare in world
history? �When you're fighting for God, there aren't any rules.
That's why we *have* the establishment clause.
Yeah it took 200 years to swing to the extreme expression currently in
vogue during which the country seemed to do pretty well.
To put it mildly, you could not be more wrong. You did well if you
were an affluent white male Christian of western European descent. If
you were anything else you were treated like garbage- and even some
WMCoWEDs were discriminated against. �Does the phrase "Irish need not
apply" ring a bell? I thought you studied history- you didn't learn an
awful lot about how things ran in this country. �I don't call it doing
pretty well if a significant proportion of your citizens is
systematically marginalized.
Why not address this point?

Hello?

Thats' your view, excluding the horrors of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot,...the
crusades were trivial in comparison.
Again, you don't seem to know a lot about history. It's not "my view";
it's simple historical fact. Maybe you should read up on the Thirty
Years' War, since that little skirmish had some small influence on the
Founders' attitudes, you know.
Why not address this point?

Hello?

I prefer classes which might be termed world comparative religion as
optional electives. Put out all the evidence, history, worldviews and
get out of the way...kids are smart.
Do we also put out the evidence against quantum mechanics?
Heliocentrism? Graph theory? Plate tectonics? For whom- third graders?
Anyway, there's no credible evidence against evolution. If there was,
one would have thought you would have presented it in this thread,
since you've been asked to do so numerous times. Second, there's no
credible evidence for Intelligent Design. If there was, one would have
thought you would have presented it in this thread, since you've been
asked to do so numerous times.
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sure that's why it takes so many cooperative psychological misfits to
shore it up and why increasingly your own team is jumping ship and
documenting their dissent.
Can you document this? Please do so without taking snippets of
published work completely out of context. Be forewarned that just
about anything you do take out of context has already been examined
and shown to be a dishonest presentation. In particular, any quote
from any of the following people meant to show they don't accept
evolution will be met with gales of laughter: Mayr, Gould, Lewontin,
Patterson, Wald, Darwin, Futuyma, Simpson, Eldridge, and Dawkins.

Have at it, sir.

 > Never proposed such. I do note that these are representative of the
constant chaos > in your group as they struggle to explain the
everpresent and highly evident failures of > the throty.

Sorry, can you please retype that so it's coherent? I have no idea
what you meant by "throty".  But it seems you think there are
significant failures in evolutionary theory. Would you care to
document those? Please do so after you document the biologists who are
"jumping ship and documenting their dissent". Unless, that is, you
mean that silly list of a couple hundred religiously motivated people
who signed a meaningless form letter. That's been pretty well
demolished already.

Tha's why we have darwinism, neo-darwininsm, neutral theory, PE, blah blah blah.
The basically spen halh their time atttacking each others ideas  and proposing
conflicting explanations.

Pardon me, but what do you think science is all about? How do you
think it works? Never mind, you obviously don't know. Let me explain
it: scientists write papers. The papers get published in peer-reviewed
journals. Other scientists who have studied similar systems then
publish other papers that either support or undermine their
colleagues' papers. If everyone publishes papers that support the
original, then soon it's generally accepted as being true. If there
are conflicting data sets (and there often are) then things get
contentious and, often, interesting. People do more research, more
papers get published, supporting one view or another, and eventually
the truth emerges. Sometimes one idea is disproven, sometimes the
truth lies somewhere between the conflicting ideas. This is the system
in which evolution has come of age- a system in which it has
constantly been tested, often revised, and emerged stronger than ever.
What you think is a weakness- the way people disagree and publish
conflicting conclusions and hash things out in the literature- is
science's greatest strength, and it's the reason the ID crowd avoid
peer-review as though it had smallpox.

The Einstein paper shows the deep respect Einstein had for God's
existence and the necessity for a real scientist to share in it.
Please I have read Einstein: The Man and His Ideas, Torrance, and been
an admirerer of the guy since I was eight. I note ypou didn't curse
him or denigrate him even though he evn offers some advice on
spiritual matters for BIOLOGISTS.

I could not find a reference for the work you cite (Einstein: The Man
and His Ideas). In any case, it is not as up to date as Isaacson's
book, which was published in 2007 and made use of thousands of
documents released in 2006.

I knew you wouldn't read the article by Torrance.
If you like, I can provide you with some information about Einstein's
attitudes about God and religion. Walter Isaacson's recent biography
is excellent
Agree, I did read the extrensive review and interview in the New
Yorker.

Well, the book has a little more information.

. But as I am sure you're aware, as brilliant as Einstein
might have been, and as good a person as he was (and he was- he was a
pacifist, a believer in liberal ideals, and a good, caring man)- he
never got a fax from god, meaning he didn't have any information the
rest of us don't have.
He did express the view that his "religion" and his attitude
concerning God was highly integrated into his science and his work.
How would you determine whether such attitudes were enabling tohis
accompishments or not? He definitiely believed they were critical.

And again, so what? I maintain that no one's personal ideas about God
are perforce of any significant value to any other person, and it
doesn't matter if we're talking about Einstein or the kid who slices
my liverwurst at the deli counter.

Chris

Looks like "EvoPeach" has decided to *completely* "forget" both the "Clergy" project and the "Steve" project...

Wonder why?

--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's see the clergy are liberal theologians who have little in common
with the NT theology; however, I believe they are sincere, not liars,
not ignorant, knew what they wer signing...similarly for the Steves in
their field.

That says nothing about the 700 people on the DI list nor the
Physician list or the European lists. At least I am intelligent and
rationalenough to understand the sincerity and authenticity of the
lists you mention. That's the difference between me and this crowd of
belligerant evo robots.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution: The theory that blows harder than all the rest!
    ... private prayer is the best, ... One advantage of private Christian schools is that there is much self ... And yet you do not understand science or civics. ... Evolution is just a metaphysical research ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The last ancestor of all life
    ... keeps coming up in Sean Pitman's replies to me so I thought I'd ... look at the papers I've seen, but of course I started with a PubMed ... search just to see what current results "flagellum evolution" gave. ... IFT complex. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The last ancestor of all life
    ... keeps coming up in Sean Pitman's replies to me so I thought I'd ... look at the papers I've seen, but of course I started with a PubMed ... search just to see what current results "flagellum evolution" gave. ... Based on the homology of IFT complex proteins ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
    ... "scientists" that included doctors and dentists that they put ... So these guys are in good company for creationists. ... evolution and the scam statement that they all signed couldn't mention ... In the end bogus lists like this really do not matter. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Shattering the myths of Darwinism?
    ... evolution, geology, paleontology, cosmology, particle physics, ... This is another dimension where the schools fail - and it may be ... subjects other than 'science'. ... "Education" is most commonly measured as the ability to ...
    (sci.skeptic)