Rob wrote:

Vince Hart wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?


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?

And there is also "intelligent design" that seeks to unite the two
theories in many ways.

It does nothing of the sort. Read "Intelligent Thought" ed. John
Brockman for the lowdown:

http://tinyurl.com/y77dlj

Rob wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?


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?

And there is also "intelligent design" that seeks to unite the two
theories in many ways.

I have not seen anything to suggest that "intelligent design" is
anything other than an attempt to repackage "scientific creationism."
http://www.lib.ipfw.edu/fileadmin/ww...miller_342.pdf

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ps.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
exists.

I think I agree. I categorically reject the delusional theists who
seek to impose their irrational vision on atheists, agnostics, and
rational theists alike. I am just not as convinced as I once was that
rational theism is where I want to make my stand.

I don't think it matters, except to you.

"Nobody cares what you think" doesn't contribute much to the
discussion, does it?

Is that what I wrote?

It seemed to me to be the implication.


Regardless, what I meant was that if anything awaits us in the great beyond
your religious beliefs probably don't matter. They only matter to you, and
to individuals stupid enough to discuss them with you

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Rob wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught
as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and
spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?


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?

And there is also "intelligent design" that seeks to unite the two
theories in many ways.

I have not seen anything to suggest that "intelligent design" is
anything other than an attempt to repackage "scientific creationism."

The attempt to force intelligent design down our throats, and to teach it as
science, is nothing more than religio-fascism with a smiley face.

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. It is not testable or provable. Our
inability to prove the existence of "the creator of the earthworm" does not
mean that God created the earthworm. Quite the contrary, it is up to
individuals making wild claims to prove their claims are correct. You can't
prove a negative.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Rob wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught
as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and
spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?


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?

And there is also "intelligent design" that seeks to unite the two
theories in many ways.

I have not seen anything to suggest that "intelligent design" is
anything other than an attempt to repackage "scientific creationism."

The attempt to force intelligent design down our throats, and to teach it as
science, is nothing more than religio-fascism with a smiley face.

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. It is not testable or provable. Our
inability to prove the existence of "the creator of the earthworm" does not
mean that God created the earthworm. Quite the contrary, it is up to
individuals making wild claims to prove their claims are correct. You can't
prove a negative.

This is a most lucid argument, one finds. Well put.

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.

It is not testable or provable. Our
inability to prove the existence of "the creator of the earthworm" does not
mean that God created the earthworm. Quite the contrary, it is up to
individuals making wild claims to prove their claims are correct. You can't
prove a negative.

"Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...

And there is also "intelligent design" that seeks to unite the two
theories in many ways.

And there is also an article by Damon Linker on a new title by Garry Wills,
What Paul Meant, and reviewed in the NY Times 28, Dec book review.

Rather than commit the fallacy - the infamous- Pathetic Fallacy; which is
to say, 'If, not A, Then it must be B,' which seem to form around these
conversations, I quote a small extract which suggests at least a 'C' being
present.

'Well, not "religion." Willis insists that
Jesus and Paul both opposed "religion,"
claiming that the worship of God was
not something "based on external
observances, on temples or churches,
on hierarchies or priesthoods." Both
Jesus and Paul were, in fact, "killed
by religion."

The editorial author of the piece then continues to note that not until AD70
did the 'radicals' [Christians] begin to think of themselves as a religion.

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 Innes

Captain Irrelevant strikes again.

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.

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.

Is there no beginning to your intelligence?