LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
Yes Liam. I meant "creationism taught as science." That is what I was
referring to when I wrote "he considers to be idiots (although
"deluded" is probably a better word choice than "idiots") those people
who want creationism taught along with (if not instead of) evolution in
public school science classes." That is why I used the word
"creationism," the word "taught," and the phrase "in public school
science classes." What did you think I meant?

I thought you meant "science as a religion." Then I posted some
geniuses that said science can and should co-exist with religion.

Well, "creationism taught as science" is done all over Kansas. I'm not
going to say that they are idiots, but I'd prefer for them to teach the
theories of evolution in their science classes. If they have religion
classes, like in Catholic schools, they can teach creationism as well.

I am not sure what you mean by "science as a religion," but I do not
see anything I wrote that could reasonably be construed as addressing
that issue.

As for the Kansans who advocate teaching creationism as science, I
think they are foolish.

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:58:30 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Personally, I do not quite agree with Wills's comment on external
circumstance, and only wish to note that not only is there more to any A,
than a necessary B, but there is a C, and other appreciations of what is
religion compared to what could be said to be religious - the latter [as
faith] being much more akin to science than what this article terms about
the radical egalitariansim of early Christians, including admission of
women, with what Wills calls "Soviet-style rewriting of history".

Phil, you've got to quit reading Fichte.

Vince Hart wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by "science as a religion," but I do not
see anything I wrote that could reasonably be construed as addressing
that issue.

John Travolta or Ron Hubbard can best explain the meaning of this
religion.

As for the Kansans who advocate teaching creationism as science, I
think they are foolish.

I think that Kansas is the only state that does that now. I know that
earlier, Tennessee and Arkansas have gone to the Supreme Court to
challeng the "Establishment Clause" and that teaching evolution was in
violation of the "First Amendment".

In 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that:

29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but
can discuss creationism there as a belief;
20% believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and
religious theories elsewhere;
16% believe public schools should teach creation only;
13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism
in science class;
4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.
1% had no opinion

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by "science as a religion," but I do not
see anything I wrote that could reasonably be construed as addressing
that issue.

John Travolta or Ron Hubbard can best explain the meaning of this
religion.

Let me if I understand this.

When I criticized the teaching of creationism as science, you thought I
was criticizing "science as a religion" which you understand to be
Scientology.

So you responded to what you thought was a criticism of Scientology by
quoting Newton and Einstein to the effect that religion and science can
and should co-exist.

Are you trying to say that you believe that religion and science can
and should co-exist as they do in Scientology?




As for the Kansans who advocate teaching creationism as science, I
think they are foolish.

I think that Kansas is the only state that does that now. I know that
earlier, Tennessee and Arkansas have gone to the Supreme Court to
challeng the "Establishment Clause" and that teaching evolution was in
violation of the "First Amendment".

In 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that:

29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but
can discuss creationism there as a belief;
20% believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and
religious theories elsewhere;
16% believe public schools should teach creation only;
13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism
in science class;
4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.
1% had no opinion

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Jan 2, 11:47 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

Intelligent design does not "unite" anything. It is a mystical belief
which
at some level I suppose I share, but which has no place whatsoever in a
science classroom. It is not science.

Aw, heck, but think how much easier it makes things for high school
kids who don't give a hoot about biology (except maybe as it applies to
human sexuality). They don't have to worry any more about memorizing
all those odd-sounding geological periods: Cambrian, Ordovician,
Silurian, Devonian etc. No need to grapple with such difficult concepts
as cladistics, exaptation, Dollo's law etc. No need to ponder tough
issues such as how prokaryotes became eukaryotes, or whether endothermy
arose separately in birds or was inherited from dinosaur ancestors. All
they need to do is say "God did it," and presto! End of story.

I wish it were simply a matter of laziness and stupidity (what has become
the American Way). Actually I.D. carries a hidden agenda.

Vince Hart wrote:
Let me if I understand this.

When I criticized the teaching of creationism as science, you thought I
was criticizing "science as a religion" which you understand to be
Scientology.

So you responded to what you thought was a criticism of Scientology by
quoting Newton and Einstein to the effect that religion and science can
and should co-exist.

Are you trying to say that you believe that religion and science can
and should co-exist as they do in Scientology?

Nope, Scientology is very different. Science as a religion is
nonsense, although others are into it. What I believe is that science
can and should co-exist with religion. Einstein and Newton were the
proponents for this beleif. Capice?

Mike Murray wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:58:30 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Personally, I do not quite agree with Wills's comment on external
circumstance, and only wish to note that not only is there more to any A,
than a necessary B, but there is a C, and other appreciations of what is
religion compared to what could be said to be religious - the latter [as
faith] being much more akin to science than what this article terms about
the radical egalitariansim of early Christians, including admission of
women, with what Wills calls "Soviet-style rewriting of history".

Phil, you've got to quit reading Fichte.

Oh, for Pete's sake, Mike, entreat him to read MORE, not LESS.

That way, he'll have less time to WRITE this BS.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:58:30 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Personally, I do not quite agree with Wills's comment on external
circumstance, and only wish to note that not only is there more to any A,
than a necessary B, but there is a C, and other appreciations of what is
religion compared to what could be said to be religious - the latter [as
faith] being much more akin to science than what this article terms about
the radical egalitariansim of early Christians, including admission of
women, with what Wills calls "Soviet-style rewriting of history".

Phil, you've got to quit reading Fichte.

I have yet to start, Mike. I have stopped reading that inventor Tacitus, who
was big on brown-nosing and 'no Greek.' Phil

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike Murray wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:58:30 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Personally, I do not quite agree with Wills's comment on external
circumstance, and only wish to note that not only is there more to any
A,
than a necessary B, but there is a C, and other appreciations of what is
religion compared to what could be said to be religious - the latter [as
faith] being much more akin to science than what this article terms
about
the radical egalitariansim of early Christians, including admission of
women, with what Wills calls "Soviet-style rewriting of history".

Phil, you've got to quit reading Fichte.

Oh, for Pete's sake, Mike, entreat him to read MORE, not LESS.

That way, he'll have less time to WRITE this BS.

Plato's bull**** in this case. Plato is googable, nb, whereas Pete is not.

But what is logic to us super-genius modern folk like Trollsby here who can
dispense with the means by which we arrive at any opinion? We simply declare
ourselves beyond need of cogent discussion on any issue, as idiot-savants,
as if we are too bored to even mention our own truths, like soap-opera
stars, our conclusions are our all!

Thought this is not the conversation I had with Taimanov, who said it was
because we are /unable/ to address the particular to any context these days,
since we lacked the context or motive or sensibility to do so.

Trollsby is marked for his inability to address any topic, and instead sucks
on those who can with his inane aenemic commentaries - what a puerile troll!
If he can't address any topic whatever, why doesn't he take his own advice?

PI

Chess One wrote:
Sheldrake asked if the rules for manifestation of the Universe pre-existed
the Big-Bang or did they come into being at the same time. This is
interesting when considering mutations, and the way any new element will
form.

I didn't see this interesting post before.

I believe that Sheldrake is the proponent of the "Formative Causation".
He introduced the term, "Morphic Field", which involves archetypes in
the development of forms, patterns and structures. I haven't read his
book, A New Science of Life, which discusses things like biological
evolution, the two terms above, etc.

Archetypes might mean people like Adam and Eve, who knows? Interesting
subject though. Maybe I'll read the book.