Slashdot Mirror
Why Are Some Hell-Bent On Teaching Intelligent Design?
Funksaw writes "Here's an op-ed by first-time politician, long-time Slashdotter Brian Boyko, where he talks about his experiences testifying at the Texas Board of Education in favor of having real science in science textbooks. But beyond that, he also tries to examine, philosophically, why there is such hardened resistance to the idea of evolution in Texas. From the article: '[W]hat is true is that evolution tests faith. The fact of evolution is incontrovertible and supported by mounds of empirical evidence. Faith, on the other hand, is fragile. It is supported only by the strength of human will. And this is where it gets tricky. Because to many believers, faith, not works, is the only guarantee that one can pass God's litmus test and gain access to His divine kingdom. To lose one's faith is to literally damn oneself. So tests to that faith must be avoided at all costs. Better to be a philosophical coward than a theological failure.'"
And he put the retinas in backwards too.
Also, what type of idiot wires up the larynx via the heart? I could maybe understand if there was a ganglion down there, but no - it's just a nerve that doubles back on itsself for no good reason.
Backwards in humans, but an improved design in cephalopods.
Praise Cthulhu
Electrons move around a nuclei the same way planets move around suns
If you believe that you'll believe anything. This model of atomic structure hasn't been valid for almost a century. If you're going to talk about science, at least try to keep up with it.
That probably isn't the whole story.
There is some evidence that there is a loose confederation of well-funded lobbyists and influence-mongers who have a vested interest in casting doubt on science in general, the so-called "merchants of doubt". The same organisations tend to be behind denial of acid rain, anthropogenic climate change, and the danger of tobacco.
Denying evolution indirectly helps the bottom line of tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies and so on. Why wouldn't they help out the cause?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
This article made me discover the wonderful word 'invagination'.
Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Evolution is fact because it has been observed. I suppose there remains a possibility that what has been observed has been totally misunderstood by everyone, but that applies for just about any fact.
The theory of evolution is not a fact. However, if the theory of evolution is proven wrong, that will not invalidate evolution, which remains a fact. As things stand, however, the theory of evolution is looking pretty robust in providing an explanation for evolution. However, like all good science theories, it is always up for being challenged and adapted in the light of observed evidence.
The key issue understanding the difference between "the theory of evolution" and "evolution". They are not the same thing, and if an argument challenging evolution has its basis in misunderstanding that, then it has failed before it has even started.
Retinas _this_ way around are also damaged by UV light, specifically the longer wavelength UVA as UVB and UVC are stopped at the cornea. What's even more interesting: less than 1% of UV light reaches the retina because it is blocked at the cornea. I highly doubt that putting all that mess in from of the photorreceptors will have a noticeable effect on retinal degradation.
Let your water source prove to be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth,a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly.
That sound like more than just mindless procreation, so the next time some bible thumper insists on ridiculous ideas (such as sex is only for procreation) ask them for scriptural proof because at John 17:17 Jesus said; "... your word is truth," so anyone who speaks truth will have sound scriptural support from God's word; the Bible, to back up their claims (2nd Timothy 2:15).
Just FYI:
http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/11/
Quote:
Almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew during the thousand years of its composition. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.
The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD.
---
And of course, the new testament isn't part of Judaism. Per that faith jesus was a false messiah.
Their position on the new testament is too complex for me to summarize.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm not the OP but the logic is pretty straightforward. By definition, in any universe where omniscience exists, free will cannot also exist.
If anyone can know with absolute certainty that I will do something, I therefore cannot choose to do anything else.
But that logic falls apart when we examine the act of choice closer. Why did you make a particular choice? If determinism holds - if your actions are somehow preordained, for example by following logically from a complete description of some former or latter moment of time, such as "the beginning", or the combination of your personality and history, or anything else - and this means determinism coerces your will, then surely the alternative - that you simply choose randomly - means that the metaphorical dice coerces you just as much.
What's actually happening here is that reality has been reduced to the point where free will lies in peaces, and since none of these pieces is will by itself it can't be found. But of course in reality people are highly predictable; sure. they can choose something else than what someone who knows them very well predicts, they just don't want to. In a 100% deterministic system, this predictability tops at 100% certainty, while in a system with a random dice added to process it's that dice, not the person, who is "free" to take unexpected pics (because if the dice is the person or his "will", we've just pushed the problem one step back and recurse right back to it).
tl;dr If you compare a philosophical and juridical concept with a concept in physics, you'll get "sounds like purple" as an answer.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.