That probably sums it up Don. One can always ask whether the god that invented natural selection is sane!
On 27 Feb, 00:29, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > No. I don't. I don't have a dog in this fight. I also don't see what > the big deal would be to have that short paragraph in the forward. As > a sop. Granted, the ID folks wouldn't be satisfied any more then the > anti-religious would be willing to do it. It's a total non-issue with > me. It does bother me that my Texas legislature is wasting time > discussing it, however. It's another bone-headed government action > that solves nothing and wastes money and time. > > dj > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Chris Jenkins > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Science class is where the scientific method is taught. The scientific > > method is about recording observations. As soon as someone observes a > > god, then add it to the textbook. Until then, let all talk of that > > stay in the class it belongs in: Philosophy. I don't think that's an > > unreasonable request, do you? > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> What I mean is I don't know why the people pushing the ID stuff felt > >> they had to invent it in the first place. I wouldn't object to a > >> short paragraph in a science text disclaiming any attempt to refute > >> the existence of a supreme being. It could basically say what I said > >> above and then go on with the science. Would you have a problem with > >> that? Stick it in the forward that nobody reads anyway. When I went > >> to public school there were mentions of God in just about every text. > >> I turned out alright. > > >> dj > > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Chris Jenkins > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> The conflict occurs because the ID folks are attempting to get it > >>> added to curriculum. I have no problem with people believe in magical > >>> unicorns...I only have a problem with it being taught as science. > > >>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> I've never really understood the debate. I generally accept evolution > >>>> because it make sense. However, while I personally don't subscribe > >>>> to Intelligent design, I see no conflict with evolution in someone > >>>> believing that God created everything and planned for it to happen > >>>> just the way it did. Conflict with reason certainly, but not with > >>>> evolution. If God can do anything, why couldn't he set up things to > >>>> work by natural selection? It's so simple; I don't see what the > >>>> hubbub is about. > > >>>> dj > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:01 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> I have problems with evolution - I don't like it much! It's the best > >>>>> explanation, but there is so much it doesn't explain. Work in > >>>>> progress is usually like this. We have no idea of what it is all for > >>>>> and I dislike the lack of public dreaming about this - brute > >>>>> godswanking versus brute how-science seems merely to exclude this. I > >>>>> have been a little persuaded by creationists who make the point that > >>>>> biology should be taught (including Darwin) and that this is no reason > >>>>> to exclude creationism as symbolic and questioning. The argument is > >>>>> broadly Hegelian - given we seem to have a history (beyond > >>>>> vainglorious hero sagas) we can confirm by best efforts, what should > >>>>> we do with it in terms of the being we can create? This seems to me a > >>>>> religious question that can be informed by science. It also questions > >>>>> the authority of churches and authority does not like to be > >>>>> questioned. > > >>>>> On 26 Feb, 07:24, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Having long believed that Creationism was generally a strange US > >>>>>> American phenomenon, I found the following article > >>>>>> interesting:http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,609712,00.html > > >>>>>> In my personal history, during the long period of my life in which I > >>>>>> described myself as a Christian, I never had any problem with > >>>>>> accepting the idea of evolution. Many believers, however, seem to have > >>>>>> problems and, apparently, not all of these are fundamentalists. > > >>>>>> Francis > > >>>>>> On 12 Feb., 23:20, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> > Charles Darwin is 200 years old today. He published "On the Origin of > >>>>>> > Species" 150 years ago. > > >>>>>> > Darwin was a genial thinker and, on of the things I find most > >>>>>> > impressive about him, an honest intellect. Apart from his insights > >>>>>> > into evolution and natural selection, one of the most fascinating > >>>>>> > things about him was his spiritual journey, leading him from intended > >>>>>> > study of theology in preparation for ordination as an Anglican > >>>>>> > clergyman to a painful, honest acknowledgement of personal > >>>>>> > agnosticism > >>>>>> > and a repudiation of Christian theological models. And this in > >>>>>> > Victorian England. > > >>>>>> > St. Charles the Evolved, my suggestion as a patron saint for Minds > >>>>>> > Eye :-) > > >>>>>> > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
