Does Kansas really want to become like Utah? Let's be honest. Utah is not seen very highly by many Americans and by others. That may be very well due to the excessive role religion plays in every aspect of the state.
I know a lot of people and I don't know anyone that thinks poorly of Utah because of its education system. Utah is the topic of a lot of jokes due to the high concentration of Mormons, but the jokes are never malicious.
Also, even though I am not Mormon and don't agree with their beliefs, every single Mormon I've met in my life has been extremely intelligent. If they are products of the schools of Utah I wouldn't think twice about having my children go to school there.
Basically, ID says that anything we can't directly observe or understand was made by god.
No it doesn't. It just says that after science has taken a crack at it and we understand just how infinitely improbable it is that such order could come out of universal chaos, we should at least consider the possibility that there was some intelligence behind it.
Look, before all you ultra right wing whackos start modding me down, you should realize that 1) I am religious and 2) I am also a scientist and see no conflict between religion and science and 3) the Intelligent Design camp are absolutely and completely biased and corruptive of both religion and science.
Everyone is biased, not just the ID camp. And given the option between only creationsim and only evolution, ID is actually the most non-extreme option. It also strikes me as more probable than either strict creationism or Godless evolution.
And those in the Kansas government should know that this issue is making Kansas a laughing stock world wide.
Who cares? It's not a popularity contest.
There is absolutely nothing that you could do to get me to move my family, science or business there.
Me neither. But that has nothing to do with their education system.
Speaking of business, we are in the initial stages of moving technologies we have developed into the privately funded domain and early estimates are that we are sitting on significantly large markets right out the door with significant expansion likely in a variety of areas. Kansas does not remotely have a chance of attracting businesses like ours given the educational climate required for our work.
Hahahahah, now I know you're just playing. Like you were really ever considering moving a technological company to Kansas. Come on, you're providing comic relief at this point.
We need students and employees who are well prepared in the sciences and are capable of thinking independently, and if the school board succeeds in misleading their students, they are of no use to us.
Unless your technological work has something to do with religion or evolution, I can't see where this decision makes a friggin' difference to a technological company.
Science is about knowledge. Religion is about faith. When faith becomes knowledge, religion becomes science. Until then, keep the two apart, as it is appropriate.
I can actually almost agree with you--at least the first three sentences. But religion will never "become" science if science refuses to analyze religion so that religion can become science. There is an artifically constructed wall that some people try to put up between science and religion. That wall shouldn't exist. As long as there are things that religion can explain that science can't, science isn't complete. And it won't be complete until that wall is torn down and science is allowed to consider religious explanations.
Call religion a very significant clue that could help humans better understand its world. Not every scientific theory has to be religious (of course), but intentionally ignoring the information the human race has available to it is decidedly unscientific.
Consider that nothing in the Bible (places, people, events, etc.) has been disproven by science. That's not bad for a book written thousands of years ago. That alone should cause an objective person to consider the possibility that that book has some valuable information that isn't limited just to religious doctrine, but also that it contains historical fact as well. And maybe, just maybe, it has some answers that science is desperately looking for but is afraid to consider.
We'll probably just have to agree to disagree. It is clear we have vastly different points of view on just about everything... including the intelligence of people, apparently.
For what it's worth, it seems to me that liberals and atheists tend to have a lot less confidence in their fellow man and his or her intelligence than conservatives and Christians. While a liberal will argue for big government because he believes the stupid population doesn't know how to best distribute its money, conservatives argue that people know how to spend their own money better than government. While an atheist will tend to believe they are "elitely" intelligent and that's why they don't believe in God, Christians will tend to have a more positive outlook of the ability of their fellow man to grasp the topics.
I think it all comes down to self-absorbed elitism and that's what atheists and liberals have in common--and both are threatened by ideas that threaten their perceived elitist status.
Its amazing the so-called explationary powers that it looses once one acknowledges that there is a growing number of athiests in the world.
I'm not sure that there is a growing number of atheists in the world, but even if it were true, it doesn't make them right.
Sure, we don't know what happened before life to cause life (there was no time before the big bang, so...) but this does not mean GOD exists.
No, it doesn't mean God exists. But it means we at least need to recognize that science hasn't been able to answer that fundamental question. Until it does, it is absolutely foolish to discount the explanations that do exist based solely on what you believe based on the information we have now.
If science somedays explains how it all started, great, you'll have a point then. Until then, we have no explanation of how life started and it is not unscientific to at least present those explanations to get people (future scientists, theologians, and philosophers) thinking about options.
Let's put it this way, hypothetically speaking: Let's assume for a moment that God does exist, He did create heaven and earth, and that His work basically consisted of putting all the building blocks where they needed to be (which might even be the Big Bang) and letting everything unfold according to His rules (which we now call physics). Being all-knowing, He did this knowing what would happen and that one day humans would come to be--but He did it in such a way that we would live in a universe that we could grow to understand up to the point of recognition that He started it all.
If the above is true (and you are in no position to claim that it isn't, we simply do not know), science does not help us get any closer to the truth and is, in fact, an obstacle to the understanding truth when used by people as an excuse to ridicule and discard religious explanations. On the other hand, science can be a useful tool that may one day cause the human race to conclude "There is no scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and/or the origin of the universe." Or perhaps science will one day be able to replicate the Big Bang and we can witness life start all by itself just like it supposedly did billions of years ago. Creationism is falsifiable--just show me a Big Bang and life just happening all by itself. Can't do that? Then it seems that belief in a Godless Big Bang is just a much a leap of faith as religion.
So why is it acceptable to present a "scientific article of faith" in science but not present a similar "religious article of faith" that endeavors explains the same thing?
I'm just assuming that the Roman Catholic Church has the same philosophy as the Orthodox Church (in which I worship), namely that rich decorations have such a long history in the Church and have been approved of for so long that they are now part of Holy Tradition and cannot be questioned. To say otherwise is to say that God has led His people astray.
I'm not sure if that's the Roman Catholic belief, but it's sure sounding like it from what I'm reading here. If so, that also seems like an excuse more than a rational justification. God's word is contained in the Bible, not in tradition. What the Catholic church approves and disapproves of has changed over time. God's Word in the Bible has not.
You seem to be applying a Protestant ethos--that is, using your own feelings to judge the correctness of Church actions and interpreting the rules on your own. You just have to understand that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church play by different rules.
All of our rules are contained in the Bible. That's the ultimate authority. Where tradition and the Bible contradict each other, the Bible must take precedence. That's a CHRISTIAN etho, not a Catholic or Protestant one.
Oh, and with regards to buying statues: The Orthodox and Catholics believe, as was set at the 7th Ecumenical Council, that icons are not mere decorations, but actual windows to the glory in Heaven.
Where is that contained in the Bible? The only thing vaguely similar to statues in the Bible strikes me as being the prohibition against idols and engraven images. Thus if there is something else in the Bible that makes a loophole for "lots of icons", I'd sure like to read that.
The study that I mentioned was from Nature Magazine, article 394(6691) 23 July 1998. They took a group that the "National Academy of Sciences" considered to be eminent scientists, not just a group of people with bachelors degrees in biology.
Ok. As I said earlier, it seems to me that this is not a statistically useful subset of the classification of "smart people." Most smart people aren't scientists let alone "eminent scientists." I almost wonder if the results are absolutely extreme because some extremely smart people literally get what is known as a "God complex" which could effect the way they answer that question.
Another study mentioned in Scientific American, September 1999, did a study that gave different numbers for people with B.S. degrees and those considered to be "eminent" scientists. It gave 40% of people with B.S. in sciences are religious and 10% of eminent scientists are religious.
Anyway, with such overwhelming numbers I have a hard time believing surveys that suggest that only 40% of B.S.'s are religious (although if they define "religious" as "going to church at least 3 times a month" then, sure, that's a different story). Although I guess a popular elitist position that some people at Slashdot would probably take is that "Well, 90% of Americans are as dumb as a rock" so it's entirely possible that 83% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus but only 40% with degrees believe the same thing. I think a lot of Americans are apathetic in general but I don't think that they're necessarily as stupid as would be required for the 83% figure and 40% figure to both be right.
As for 93% being too high of a number, I agree that even I am a little skeptical of that number. But while I too know quite a few people from college that I consider scientists, none are on the caliber of even being nominated for the National Academy of Sciences. So any anecdotal evidence that I have would have no bearing on the caliber of people that this study used.
Like I said, it would be inaccurate to draw conclusions about the beliefs of "smart people" based on such a select group as the NAS which is not at all representative of "smart people" in general. The B.S. survey you mention is closer to what we need, but I'd still need to see the methodology to accept the 40% figure.
A few other studies include one done George Gallup in 1995. In this gallup poll it shows that 53% of people who have attended college believe that religion is important in their life while 63% of people with no college feel the same way.
Going to college doesn't make you smarter, it makes you more knowledgeable. It also tends to make you more liberal and more atheist, at least temporarily. That's why I would want to see the same results broken down by age to see how much of that 10% difference "bounces back" after a few years out of college.
Yet God gave some pretty specific instructions to build a lavish temple to Him to the Hebrews. Christ never deprecated this!
There's a lot of Old Testament things He never technically "deprecated" yet we don't observe anymore. It seems that this line of thinking is taking the things you like from the Old Testament and ignoring those you don't.
Why can we not do both -- give to the poor and build beautiful altars for His most holy sacrifice?
My problem is that the Catholic churches I see do way too much of the the former and far too little of the latter.
This supports our Traditions as well
I don't have a problem with all of the Catholic traditions. In fact, a protestant can thrive very well in a Catholic mass if he simply lets slide excessive veneration of Mary and the saints (neither of which are technically required of a Catholic). But the lavishness of the churches is something I take issue with, especially here in Mexico. Given the conditions so many people live in almost next door to the churches, it can be downright offensive. And all the statues of saints and Mary and even Jesus himself seems dangerously close to idoltry. Yes, I know the reasons given for them and that Catholics aren't actually praying to these objects. But I don't see where most of these objects increase the beauty of the church or the glory of God.
If your christian do you want your children indoctrinated to be a muslim or hindu? No? Good.
No, but I would like them to be knowledgable of these beliefs since they are very important in the world. As much as some people at Slashdot hate it, many people believe in Creation and/or ID. Then there are others that don't necessarily believe in Creation/ID but also recognize there are some holes in evolution that doesn't explain the origin of life--it explains what happened after life began.
As such, evolution might be part of the answer--but it definitely isn't the whole answer. Big Bang vs. creationism is a much more valid debate than Creationism vs. Evolution. And even the Big Bang doesn't necessarily contradict creationism because it still doesn't explain how it all began for no reason.
Quite frankly, it's amusing to be where I am. I am amused by the fundamentalists that look silly trying to get evolution out of the school and it's amusing to watch others trying to prevent students from being exposed to other ideas that don't contradict science and may very well explain some things tha science can't.
Actually I do imply that the smarter you are the more likely you are to not believe in religion. I do not think that is flamebait. There are plenty of studies that suggest this. Two such studies were done by James H Leuba in 1914 and a study done in Nature magazine in 1998. In Leuba's study he took the 400 leading scientists from the American Men of Science (AMS). 73.6% of the respondants claimed to be athiest or agnostic. He redid his study in 1933 and found the number rose to 85% of the scientists claiming to not believe in God. When Nature magazine redid the study using the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), they found that 93% of the respondants did not believe in God.
You seem to be talking of a study of scientists, not a study of "smart people." While I will not disagree that scientists are generally smart out of necessity, these numbers tend to look at a subgroup of "smart people" that obviously have a potentially very different outlook on life--and that outlook could potentially even vary greatly depending on what area of science the scientists work in.
I'm personally skeptical of the 93% figure. Could you provide a link to that study so I could look at it's methodology? I know quite a few scientists and they are all Christians. Obviously my sample is non-representative, but I find 93% to be exceedingly high. I'd want to see it broken down by not just "National Academy of Sciences" but also on scientific specialization, geographic location, and age.
Another matter is that since the mass of the faithful also mystically represents the Body of Christ, then it makes sense that they should be surrounded with as much beauty as possible.
That seems more like an excuse than anything. I might as well use the same argument for surrounding my family with as much beauty as possible since we're all Chrisitan and we pray together so we should spend our money to make our surrounding house as lavish as possible instead of helping the poor.
The churches that have such elaborate finery are also those which do more than any others to alleviate poverty, since their sheer numbers allow more money to be donated.
That may be the case elsewhere, definitely not in Mexico. Here, the most lavish churches seem to be the ones that are most interested in acquiring more and more decorations, remodeling the church, etc. Then you hear about youth groups going on retreat or maybe visiting some sick people in hospitals (good things that we SHOULD spend money on!), but inevitably they announce that at the end of the service so that we all will help them out economically in those endeavors by dropping some coin in their baskets on the way out... because the church itself doesn't spend any of its money on that!
Rich vestments etc. aren't holding the poor down, get over it.
No, I won't get over it. It's not about whether or not it's holding down the poor. It's a question of the Catholic Church having unholy spending priorities. As you know, a poor person that has only one coin and gives that one coin to God has earned more reward in heaven than a rich person that gives 100 such coins. It's not a matter of whether or not the Catholic Church does or doesn't help the poor, it's whether it's using all of its money wisely and in Godly endeavors.
You seem to equate the Catholic Church (i.e. a physical organization consisting of a political hierarchy and material buildings) as the Body of Christ when the Body of Christ is reallyUS--the PEOPLE. I disagree that it is acceptable to treat the physical Catholic Church and its material possessions with the same reverance as I do God and Jesus which are present in the true Body of Christ, which is all of us. If the former would give more to the latter rather than to itself, I'd agree with its spending 100%. But that would essentially mean giving to the poor, not buying a new statue for the church.
Then why was it OK for Mary of Bethany to do what she did?
Because she did it to Jesus himself in person during the short time He was with us on this earth. I definitely do not see this verse as being a blank check for the church to spend money for all eternity on arguably useless decoration instead of the poor and needy.
We believe that the whole of the mass -- not just the tabernacle and the ciborium and the chalice (the said vessels you claimed) -- should be elaborate and beautiful as we can reasonably expect to manage. So the vessels, the altar, the vestments, the thurible, the pews, the windows, etc. should be a testament to God's greater glory.
What in the New Testament gives you any indication that God is particularly interested in material goods or that anything that we are capable of producing with our hands could actually increase God's glory!?
In addition, they help as worship aids for the congregation; to overwhelm and lift the self into a sense of other-worldliness. The mass should be more lavish and beautiful than the stuff we experience elsewhere, so we might know that God's heavenly kingdom in all its majesty is far greater still.
That seems kind of "out there" to me. If you need material goods to help you know that God's heavenly kingdom is even more majestic, I think you have some serious issues that go far beyond buying gold and silver for the alter.
Also, in terms of tradition, this was the trend as soon as our Christian ancestors could worship in the open.
A "trend" 1800 years ago doesn't make it Biblical or correct. As already mentioned, the Catholic Church has done a LOT of things that were not Biblical or correct.
Certainly, adornments were less lavish while we were relegated to worship in the catecombs. God doesn't expect us to give him perfection in this respect; that would be impossible. We believe he does want us to give what we reasonably can in our station of life.
"To give" to the material church or "to give" our material possessions to the poor and give our spirital wealth to God? I'd say the latter. As Jesus said, if we would be perfect, go, sell our things, and give to the poor, and follow Him. He didn't say "Give me your possessions and follow me."
The original Body and Blood of Christ comes to us in the Eucharist. That necessitates having the finest materials, such as gold, to hold the Holy Gifts in while they are worshipped or brought to the faithful who are home sick or imprisoned. You don't have to know much about Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy to understand that we believe that Christ comes to us in the flesh in church.
I understand that perfectly well. I had to understand that (and even agree to it, which I do!) before I could receive Communion at Catholic Mass, let alone at my own Catholic wedding.
As I said elsewhere, I'm ok with the vessels that carry the Eucharist being of excellent material and gold. That's fine. It does not explain excessive spending on priestly garb, jewelry, and other objects not directly related to Jesus in the church--statues to saints, Mary, elaborate crosses, and other objects that decorate the walls and sometimes during Mass I just have to look at them and think to myself, "Was that REALLY something useful that the Church should've spent money on?" In some cases it seems those objects are downright tacky and actually detract from any beauty that might somehow glorify God and Jesus.
Just so I'm clear, you want us to teach an idea (it does not rise to the level of a theory) that isn't science, in a science class. That's the gist, correct?
Personally, I'd go along with something ranton mentioned in another post--a class specifically called 'The origin of life' where all theories could be covered.
If that doesn't happen, though, the fact that science cannot completely and conclusively explain how life began does raise a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt such that it is not unreasonable to at least mention another theory that might explain what science has thusfar not been able to.
And by doing so, you're giving tacit approval of the idea, by making it appear that it belongs in a science class.
No, I'm giving tacit recognition that science has not been able to adequately explain the origin of life and that there are other explanations that someone interested in the truth might want to consider to explain that lack of explanation.
The only thing you've demonstrated in your post is a gross misunderstanding of what science is, and how it should be taught.
My views are obviously not popular at Slashdot. I expected no less and really don't care.
I do not misunderstand what science is. But I think we should at least agree that anything that is taught in school should be taught in an effort that some student, someday, might find the truth. You are doing a disservice to all students by intentionally excluding other explanations that, ultimately, might be right.
I agree science isn't the best place for the discussion--that's why I'd prefer a class called 'The origin of life' where all theories could be discussed, compared, and even complement each other. But if a special class on that topic isn't going to exist, the competing explanations for the origin of life need to be discussed where that topic is already being discussed. And that's currently in science class.
You are saying that most Slashdot readers have a certain bias, but you are forgetting what Slashdot is. It is "News For Nerds", which generally implies it is built for a slightly above average in intelligence crowd. This may not always be true, but I am sure that your average Slashdot reader has at least slightly above average intelligence. Therefore it is pretty obvious that in such a society of smart people, religion is going to get a bad rap.
See, ranton, your OTHER post was not a troll. This is. And flamebait.
Your implication that only stupid, non-above-average people are religious is patently absurd and contradcits evidence to the contrary. Should we put together a list of extremely smart people over the ages that were religious?
I'd submit the opposite is true. Those that are smart enough to realize that the universe is infinitely incredible--and only becomes more incredible the more we supposedly learn--the less likely it is that this all just happened by accident.
Given that sicnce still don't have all the answers to the physical universe or even to our own planet, only a fool would presume to know that that same science could explain how it all began.
Every time someone has a different opinion than you, you scream trolling.
Not every time. Just when they are. You were not trolling. The other two people were. I think you can see the difference in the content of each post.
And with beliefs such as yours, it is no woner that you have alot of differing opinions with alot of people.
Actually, they don't differ with all that many... Except on Slashdot. Then they usually clash violently. That's what happens with a conservative Christian (NOT fundamentalist!) hangs around in a liberal, atheist stronghold.
Just because both religion and science have a different explanation for life does not mean both belong in a science classroom. All it could mean is that they both may belong in a class discussing the origin of life. But as for a science classroom, only science's theories should be discussed. As soon as another theory for the origin of life is found it will be discussed in classrooms right next to evolution. But no such theory exists.
Like I said, I would agree with you on virtually every point except on the origin of life. This is a place where religion and science intersect. I wouldn't be opposed to taking evolution out of science class and taking creationism/ID out of social studies and putting it in a single class called "The Origin of Life." That'd be fair. But I doubt it's going to happen. And to pretend that evolution is the only prevalent theory to the origin of life is to close your eyes to reality.
Religion's explanations should stay in sunday school classes and private religous schools where they belong.
What if those religious explanations are right? What if science is spinning its wheels by not accepting to even look at or consider a "larger picture" on this one issue?
What if science could eventually prove the existince of God? I don't pretend to know how that could happen and I don't feel like getting into a philisophical debate, but what if science eventually did that as a result of considering evolution as well as as how that might fit in with some religious beliefs that supposedly explain the origin of life? As it is now, science automatically shuts down as soon as someone mentions God. It artificially limits the potential expanse of science.
In the end, there is only one truth. I wonder if science will actually dare to find it or if it will avoid perhaps the single most important truth in the universe on philisophical grounds? Science, to some, IS a religion. And THAT is a problem.
Umm... Jesus disagrees with you a tad... John 12:4-8 states:
I think you disagree with me a tad, not Jesus. That verse was about someone spending money on Jesus in person while He was here with us and it sure sounds to me like He was saying it was ok to spend money on Him now because he wouldn't always be here. That hardly makes any sense if you want to try to use that same verse to justify ignoring the poor forever in favor of spending money on making your church pretty.
We believe that Christ's true physical presence exists in the Eucharist.
And as such I have no problem with the vessels used for Eucharist being appropriately elaborate. But that doesn't mean that excessive adornment throughout the entire building and with statutes (idols?) and decorations that have nothing to do with Jesus is appropriate.
Why should we treat him any differently than Mary of Bethany? Giving money, service, and faith to the poor is very good, but so is treating Christ with the majesty He deserves.
And you think that is accomplished with money? Hmmm.
Though we can never be truly perfect, or worship God to the degree he deserves, we should make a best effort.
I believe that's a personal, spiritual effort that has no bearing on money. Where two or more congregate in His name, there He is present. There is no indication that some amount of gold makes a difference.
Maybe you missed the part of the Gospel where the woman with an alabaster box broke it and annointed Jesus. When the disciples complained that the money from the oil, when sold, could be spent on the poor, Jesus said "The poor will always be with you." Moral of the story? Glorify God first, pay attention to your fellow man second, although this second follows very, very close behind the first.
That was specifically about spending money on expensive oil on Jesus--that's why He said "The poor will always be with you." I.e., HE will not. That's why it was ok to use expensive oil on Jesus himself. If He were referring to the physical posessions of church, He wouldn't have said something to imply that His presence was temporary.
That you liken the physical material buildings of the Catholic Church with the original body of Christ is worrisome. Maybe things haven't changed so much in the last 500 years.:)
Me: In short, the origin of life is a "special case" of science and religion
You: Again...bullshit. Science is science and religion is religion. The two cannot be mixed.
Like I said, people like you are as much of a threat to knowledge and truth as those that would, on their religious beliefs, attempt to ban evolution from the classroom.
Religion has an explanation for the origin of life and science has an explanation for the origin of life. If you cannot see why it is foolish to discuss either explanation without mentioning the other, your intellectual capacity and desire to find the truth is so low that your opinion doesn't matter anyway.
I can't believe this troll was modded insightful. Actually, it's Slashdot, yes I can... if it attacks religion or conservative politics, it's insightful. If it supports religion or attacks liberal politics, it's flamebait, trolling, etc.
Anyway...
ID propagandists must be attacked in the same way that, for instance, white-supremacist/neo-nazi/neo-fascist ideologues are attacked.
Yes. And all those groups should be dealt with in the voting booth and with rational discussion. And, yes, that requires discussion. Something that a lot of people at Slashdot don't even want to seem to do when it comes to talking about intelligent design.
They are nutjobs hell-bent (no pun intended) on dismantling the basis of rational, secular civilization and all the advances of modern science.
Funny, after that sentence it rather sounds like you that is the radical nutjob.
I don't care what your religion is or what you choose to believe, but when you try to force your worldview on me or society as a whole, I will attack you with whatever tactics I have at my disposal.
I'll agree that no-one should force their religion or worldview on anyone else. But you should also not attempt to prevent the concept and beliefs from being discussed in public schools. For better or for worse, there are people that believe in evolution, creationism, and others that believe in this "intelligent design" concept. Mock any of those groups all you want, but we are doing a disservice to students if we intentionally omit any of these theories from our schools.
Now there are those that will say, "Sure, but do it in a mythology class." Right there, that's an inappropriate judgement that just shows that certain people are afraid to have the debate at all. They feel safer if it is pre-ordained that creationism or ID is a myth.
Is creationism or ID scientific? I would say probably not. But the origin of life is one of the few places where religion and science must intersect. While I disagree, some people would claim that science and religion offer competing views to the origin of life. As such, it is entirely inappropriate to discuss one without at least touching on the other.
If the purpose of learning and science is ultimately to ascertain the truth, it would be wrong to limit the exposure of students to only a single explanation under the excuse that it's the only "scientific" explanation. It doesn't matter if it is scientific if it's wrong, and it would be against the ideals of science to use science as an excuse to attempt to block the discussion of other explanations.
In short, the origin of life is a "special case" of science and religion. Those that want to try to drive evolution out of the classroom and those that want to keep intelligent design or creationism out of the classroom are being driven by their respective beliefs and not by an honest interest in seeking out the truth.
When it comes to what's taught in classrooms, both the anti-ID and anti-evolution factions are equally to be despised.
As a catholic, I think the Vatican's statement has exposed the fundamentalists' fanatism regarding the Holy Scriptures: The ID proponents are not only going against science, they're also going against the Church that represented christianity for more than 15 centuries - that ought to say something.
As a life-long protestant who has been attending Catholic mass for the last 10 years after marrying a Catholic...
Understand that while the Catholic Church almost signularly represented Christianity for over 1000 years, it didn't always do so in a very Christian manner. Quite the opposite in many cases. The Protestant branch of the Christian faith originated precisely because of the Catholic Chruch's poor stewardship of the faith.
Things are improved today as compared to 500 years ago, but you still need only walk into a Catholic church and a Protestant church to see the difference in priorities. As a general rule, the Catholic churches still spend way too much money on ornaments and decorations and material objects in the church. This money could be much better used for helping the poor and taking the faith to the unbelievers.
Anyway, I digress...
That the Vatican would have an opinion that disagrees with Fundamentalists is a complete non-story. These two groups of Christians believe in two different things--otherwise, two separate groups wouldn't exist in the first place!
I personally don't follow the big bang/evolution/Intelligent design debate closely, but the Vatican's statement is not a blow to intelligent design and it does not help evolution. It simply doesn't matter.
No real need for this either - think of software radios. Today's computers should be fast enough to just read the TV signal through a simple A/D converter and do everything else in software
Bingo!
Like I said, you'd have to implement absolutely draconian measures to close this hole. You'd have to ban A/D converters... but those have huge uses outside of the music/movie industry. You'd have to ban software... but those have huge uses outside of the music/movie industry.
Simply, there's no way for the **AA to achieve what it wants through legislation. Technology has made them obsolete and technology will run over and flatten legislation every time.
You may have noticed, however, that governments and law enforcement organizations have gotten MUCH better at tracking the origins and authors of viruses and worms. Fewer "distributors" simply means that more of those resources can be focused on finding the sources.
Perhaps. I think finding the sourrce of an MPEG or MP3 is substantially harder than backtracking virus propagation.
If a bunch of instant-gratification idiots didn't think they were entitled to anything and everything they could get their hands on, we wouldn't be in this mess. All it does is give the **AA's all the justification they need to have these ridiculous laws passed.
Doesn't matter. Even if the "instant-gratification idiots" shouldn't do what they do, that doesn't make it ok or reasonable for the **AA to do what they try to do. The laws won't be passed to achieve the goals the **AA want and even if they are, they tend to have the opposite effect by forcing customers to get the ripped MP3 (so they can use it on their MP3 player) off the Internet.
Again, if I normally buy CDs, rip them, and load them on my MP3 player... then all the sudden it's no longer possible to rip my CDs... am I going to stop using my MP3 player? No, of course not. I'm going to get my MP3s from wherever I can find MP3s... and if that's on P2P, that's where I'm going. Now the only question is whether people will be so ethical as to bother buying a CD (that they'll never use) for every MP3 they download. I doubt they will.
A bunch of freeloaders are screwing up MY fair use rights and MY consumer products.
BULLSHIT! The **AA is trying to screw with your fair use rights. Yes, they're doing to in an irrational response to freeloaders but that does NOT make the **AA justified in screwing with fair use rights. They (the **AA) need to find a way to be profitable within the limits of the law and within the scope of current technology or find something else to do.
And because, like you, they think they're smart enough to game the system, they're going to screw up P2P, torrents, Freenet, and probably the internet itself.
Not at all. There are growing pains, of course, and the RIAA (I have more problems with the RIAA than with the MPAA) will try to stick to its old, obsolete model as much as possible for as long as possible. But it's a lost cause. Technology has made their very existence virtually obsolete. Yes, they'll try to screw with P2P, torrents, and everything else in an effort of self-preservation. And they may have limited success for a limited amount of time, but it's a fight they cannot win. In my opinion, it's a fight they shouldn't win.
Regardless of the laws that are passed, the RIAA is doomed. The RIAA formed at a time when bands needed them to get their music out and customers needed them to get the music from. Neither the bands nor the customers need them anymore. That's the simple reality. The RIAA survives only on inertia and they can only do that for a limited amount of time. Some amount of spasms, kicks, and groans from the industry is to be expected as it dies.
Slashdot Mirror
I know a lot of people and I don't know anyone that thinks poorly of Utah because of its education system. Utah is the topic of a lot of jokes due to the high concentration of Mormons, but the jokes are never malicious.
Also, even though I am not Mormon and don't agree with their beliefs, every single Mormon I've met in my life has been extremely intelligent. If they are products of the schools of Utah I wouldn't think twice about having my children go to school there.
No it doesn't. It just says that after science has taken a crack at it and we understand just how infinitely improbable it is that such order could come out of universal chaos, we should at least consider the possibility that there was some intelligence behind it.
Everyone is biased, not just the ID camp. And given the option between only creationsim and only evolution, ID is actually the most non-extreme option. It also strikes me as more probable than either strict creationism or Godless evolution.
And those in the Kansas government should know that this issue is making Kansas a laughing stock world wide.
Who cares? It's not a popularity contest.
There is absolutely nothing that you could do to get me to move my family, science or business there.
Me neither. But that has nothing to do with their education system.
Speaking of business, we are in the initial stages of moving technologies we have developed into the privately funded domain and early estimates are that we are sitting on significantly large markets right out the door with significant expansion likely in a variety of areas. Kansas does not remotely have a chance of attracting businesses like ours given the educational climate required for our work.
Hahahahah, now I know you're just playing. Like you were really ever considering moving a technological company to Kansas. Come on, you're providing comic relief at this point.
We need students and employees who are well prepared in the sciences and are capable of thinking independently, and if the school board succeeds in misleading their students, they are of no use to us.
Unless your technological work has something to do with religion or evolution, I can't see where this decision makes a friggin' difference to a technological company.
I can actually almost agree with you--at least the first three sentences. But religion will never "become" science if science refuses to analyze religion so that religion can become science. There is an artifically constructed wall that some people try to put up between science and religion. That wall shouldn't exist. As long as there are things that religion can explain that science can't, science isn't complete. And it won't be complete until that wall is torn down and science is allowed to consider religious explanations.
Call religion a very significant clue that could help humans better understand its world. Not every scientific theory has to be religious (of course), but intentionally ignoring the information the human race has available to it is decidedly unscientific.
Consider that nothing in the Bible (places, people, events, etc.) has been disproven by science. That's not bad for a book written thousands of years ago. That alone should cause an objective person to consider the possibility that that book has some valuable information that isn't limited just to religious doctrine, but also that it contains historical fact as well. And maybe, just maybe, it has some answers that science is desperately looking for but is afraid to consider.
For what it's worth, it seems to me that liberals and atheists tend to have a lot less confidence in their fellow man and his or her intelligence than conservatives and Christians. While a liberal will argue for big government because he believes the stupid population doesn't know how to best distribute its money, conservatives argue that people know how to spend their own money better than government. While an atheist will tend to believe they are "elitely" intelligent and that's why they don't believe in God, Christians will tend to have a more positive outlook of the ability of their fellow man to grasp the topics.
I think it all comes down to self-absorbed elitism and that's what atheists and liberals have in common--and both are threatened by ideas that threaten their perceived elitist status.
I'm thankful both are in the minority. :)
I'm not sure that there is a growing number of atheists in the world, but even if it were true, it doesn't make them right.
Sure, we don't know what happened before life to cause life (there was no time before the big bang, so...) but this does not mean GOD exists.
No, it doesn't mean God exists. But it means we at least need to recognize that science hasn't been able to answer that fundamental question. Until it does, it is absolutely foolish to discount the explanations that do exist based solely on what you believe based on the information we have now.
If science somedays explains how it all started, great, you'll have a point then. Until then, we have no explanation of how life started and it is not unscientific to at least present those explanations to get people (future scientists, theologians, and philosophers) thinking about options.
Let's put it this way, hypothetically speaking: Let's assume for a moment that God does exist, He did create heaven and earth, and that His work basically consisted of putting all the building blocks where they needed to be (which might even be the Big Bang) and letting everything unfold according to His rules (which we now call physics). Being all-knowing, He did this knowing what would happen and that one day humans would come to be--but He did it in such a way that we would live in a universe that we could grow to understand up to the point of recognition that He started it all.
If the above is true (and you are in no position to claim that it isn't, we simply do not know), science does not help us get any closer to the truth and is, in fact, an obstacle to the understanding truth when used by people as an excuse to ridicule and discard religious explanations. On the other hand, science can be a useful tool that may one day cause the human race to conclude "There is no scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and/or the origin of the universe." Or perhaps science will one day be able to replicate the Big Bang and we can witness life start all by itself just like it supposedly did billions of years ago. Creationism is falsifiable--just show me a Big Bang and life just happening all by itself. Can't do that? Then it seems that belief in a Godless Big Bang is just a much a leap of faith as religion.
So why is it acceptable to present a "scientific article of faith" in science but not present a similar "religious article of faith" that endeavors explains the same thing?
I'm not sure if that's the Roman Catholic belief, but it's sure sounding like it from what I'm reading here. If so, that also seems like an excuse more than a rational justification. God's word is contained in the Bible, not in tradition. What the Catholic church approves and disapproves of has changed over time. God's Word in the Bible has not.
You seem to be applying a Protestant ethos--that is, using your own feelings to judge the correctness of Church actions and interpreting the rules on your own. You just have to understand that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church play by different rules.
All of our rules are contained in the Bible. That's the ultimate authority. Where tradition and the Bible contradict each other, the Bible must take precedence. That's a CHRISTIAN etho, not a Catholic or Protestant one.
Oh, and with regards to buying statues: The Orthodox and Catholics believe, as was set at the 7th Ecumenical Council, that icons are not mere decorations, but actual windows to the glory in Heaven.
Where is that contained in the Bible? The only thing vaguely similar to statues in the Bible strikes me as being the prohibition against idols and engraven images. Thus if there is something else in the Bible that makes a loophole for "lots of icons", I'd sure like to read that.
Ok. As I said earlier, it seems to me that this is not a statistically useful subset of the classification of "smart people." Most smart people aren't scientists let alone "eminent scientists." I almost wonder if the results are absolutely extreme because some extremely smart people literally get what is known as a "God complex" which could effect the way they answer that question.
Another study mentioned in Scientific American, September 1999, did a study that gave different numbers for people with B.S. degrees and those considered to be "eminent" scientists. It gave 40% of people with B.S. in sciences are religious and 10% of eminent scientists are religious.
Again, that just seems extreme. This article mention that 83% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus which (apparently) is three times more than the number that believe in evolution, 28% (I'm suspicious of that 28% number, but whatever). It even says that 47% of non-Christians in the U.S. believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Then there's this article from just last month that says 51% of Americans believe in creationism, 30% seem to believe in what could be considered ID, and only 15% believe that Godless evolution is correct. Interestingly, someone here suggested that it's not surprising that "most people" disagree with me--it turns out, that same article suggests that most Americans do agree with me: 67% believe it is possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time. It seems the person that took issue with me and tried to depict as being in the minority is, in fact, in the minority himself.
Anyway, with such overwhelming numbers I have a hard time believing surveys that suggest that only 40% of B.S.'s are religious (although if they define "religious" as "going to church at least 3 times a month" then, sure, that's a different story). Although I guess a popular elitist position that some people at Slashdot would probably take is that "Well, 90% of Americans are as dumb as a rock" so it's entirely possible that 83% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus but only 40% with degrees believe the same thing. I think a lot of Americans are apathetic in general but I don't think that they're necessarily as stupid as would be required for the 83% figure and 40% figure to both be right.
As for 93% being too high of a number, I agree that even I am a little skeptical of that number. But while I too know quite a few people from college that I consider scientists, none are on the caliber of even being nominated for the National Academy of Sciences. So any anecdotal evidence that I have would have no bearing on the caliber of people that this study used.
Like I said, it would be inaccurate to draw conclusions about the beliefs of "smart people" based on such a select group as the NAS which is not at all representative of "smart people" in general. The B.S. survey you mention is closer to what we need, but I'd still need to see the methodology to accept the 40% figure.
A few other studies include one done George Gallup in 1995. In this gallup poll it shows that 53% of people who have attended college believe that religion is important in their life while 63% of people with no college feel the same way.
Going to college doesn't make you smarter, it makes you more knowledgeable. It also tends to make you more liberal and more atheist, at least temporarily. That's why I would want to see the same results broken down by age to see how much of that 10% difference "bounces back" after a few years out of college.
Also 48% of people who make $50
There's a lot of Old Testament things He never technically "deprecated" yet we don't observe anymore. It seems that this line of thinking is taking the things you like from the Old Testament and ignoring those you don't. Why can we not do both -- give to the poor and build beautiful altars for His most holy sacrifice?
My problem is that the Catholic churches I see do way too much of the the former and far too little of the latter. This supports our Traditions as well
I don't have a problem with all of the Catholic traditions. In fact, a protestant can thrive very well in a Catholic mass if he simply lets slide excessive veneration of Mary and the saints (neither of which are technically required of a Catholic). But the lavishness of the churches is something I take issue with, especially here in Mexico. Given the conditions so many people live in almost next door to the churches, it can be downright offensive. And all the statues of saints and Mary and even Jesus himself seems dangerously close to idoltry. Yes, I know the reasons given for them and that Catholics aren't actually praying to these objects. But I don't see where most of these objects increase the beauty of the church or the glory of God.
No, but I would like them to be knowledgable of these beliefs since they are very important in the world. As much as some people at Slashdot hate it, many people believe in Creation and/or ID. Then there are others that don't necessarily believe in Creation/ID but also recognize there are some holes in evolution that doesn't explain the origin of life--it explains what happened after life began.
As such, evolution might be part of the answer--but it definitely isn't the whole answer. Big Bang vs. creationism is a much more valid debate than Creationism vs. Evolution. And even the Big Bang doesn't necessarily contradict creationism because it still doesn't explain how it all began for no reason.
Quite frankly, it's amusing to be where I am. I am amused by the fundamentalists that look silly trying to get evolution out of the school and it's amusing to watch others trying to prevent students from being exposed to other ideas that don't contradict science and may very well explain some things tha science can't.
You seem to be talking of a study of scientists, not a study of "smart people." While I will not disagree that scientists are generally smart out of necessity, these numbers tend to look at a subgroup of "smart people" that obviously have a potentially very different outlook on life--and that outlook could potentially even vary greatly depending on what area of science the scientists work in.
I'm personally skeptical of the 93% figure. Could you provide a link to that study so I could look at it's methodology? I know quite a few scientists and they are all Christians. Obviously my sample is non-representative, but I find 93% to be exceedingly high. I'd want to see it broken down by not just "National Academy of Sciences" but also on scientific specialization, geographic location, and age.
That seems more like an excuse than anything. I might as well use the same argument for surrounding my family with as much beauty as possible since we're all Chrisitan and we pray together so we should spend our money to make our surrounding house as lavish as possible instead of helping the poor.
The churches that have such elaborate finery are also those which do more than any others to alleviate poverty, since their sheer numbers allow more money to be donated.
That may be the case elsewhere, definitely not in Mexico. Here, the most lavish churches seem to be the ones that are most interested in acquiring more and more decorations, remodeling the church, etc. Then you hear about youth groups going on retreat or maybe visiting some sick people in hospitals (good things that we SHOULD spend money on!), but inevitably they announce that at the end of the service so that we all will help them out economically in those endeavors by dropping some coin in their baskets on the way out... because the church itself doesn't spend any of its money on that!
Rich vestments etc. aren't holding the poor down, get over it.
No, I won't get over it. It's not about whether or not it's holding down the poor. It's a question of the Catholic Church having unholy spending priorities. As you know, a poor person that has only one coin and gives that one coin to God has earned more reward in heaven than a rich person that gives 100 such coins. It's not a matter of whether or not the Catholic Church does or doesn't help the poor, it's whether it's using all of its money wisely and in Godly endeavors.
You seem to equate the Catholic Church (i.e. a physical organization consisting of a political hierarchy and material buildings) as the Body of Christ when the Body of Christ is really US--the PEOPLE. I disagree that it is acceptable to treat the physical Catholic Church and its material possessions with the same reverance as I do God and Jesus which are present in the true Body of Christ, which is all of us. If the former would give more to the latter rather than to itself, I'd agree with its spending 100%. But that would essentially mean giving to the poor, not buying a new statue for the church.
Because she did it to Jesus himself in person during the short time He was with us on this earth. I definitely do not see this verse as being a blank check for the church to spend money for all eternity on arguably useless decoration instead of the poor and needy.
We believe that the whole of the mass -- not just the tabernacle and the ciborium and the chalice (the said vessels you claimed) -- should be elaborate and beautiful as we can reasonably expect to manage. So the vessels, the altar, the vestments, the thurible, the pews, the windows, etc. should be a testament to God's greater glory.
What in the New Testament gives you any indication that God is particularly interested in material goods or that anything that we are capable of producing with our hands could actually increase God's glory!?
In addition, they help as worship aids for the congregation; to overwhelm and lift the self into a sense of other-worldliness. The mass should be more lavish and beautiful than the stuff we experience elsewhere, so we might know that God's heavenly kingdom in all its majesty is far greater still.
That seems kind of "out there" to me. If you need material goods to help you know that God's heavenly kingdom is even more majestic, I think you have some serious issues that go far beyond buying gold and silver for the alter.
Also, in terms of tradition, this was the trend as soon as our Christian ancestors could worship in the open.
A "trend" 1800 years ago doesn't make it Biblical or correct. As already mentioned, the Catholic Church has done a LOT of things that were not Biblical or correct.
Certainly, adornments were less lavish while we were relegated to worship in the catecombs. God doesn't expect us to give him perfection in this respect; that would be impossible. We believe he does want us to give what we reasonably can in our station of life.
"To give" to the material church or "to give" our material possessions to the poor and give our spirital wealth to God? I'd say the latter. As Jesus said, if we would be perfect, go, sell our things, and give to the poor, and follow Him. He didn't say "Give me your possessions and follow me."
I understand that perfectly well. I had to understand that (and even agree to it, which I do!) before I could receive Communion at Catholic Mass, let alone at my own Catholic wedding.
As I said elsewhere, I'm ok with the vessels that carry the Eucharist being of excellent material and gold. That's fine. It does not explain excessive spending on priestly garb, jewelry, and other objects not directly related to Jesus in the church--statues to saints, Mary, elaborate crosses, and other objects that decorate the walls and sometimes during Mass I just have to look at them and think to myself, "Was that REALLY something useful that the Church should've spent money on?" In some cases it seems those objects are downright tacky and actually detract from any beauty that might somehow glorify God and Jesus.
Personally, I'd go along with something ranton mentioned in another post--a class specifically called 'The origin of life' where all theories could be covered.
If that doesn't happen, though, the fact that science cannot completely and conclusively explain how life began does raise a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt such that it is not unreasonable to at least mention another theory that might explain what science has thusfar not been able to.
And by doing so, you're giving tacit approval of the idea, by making it appear that it belongs in a science class.
No, I'm giving tacit recognition that science has not been able to adequately explain the origin of life and that there are other explanations that someone interested in the truth might want to consider to explain that lack of explanation.
The only thing you've demonstrated in your post is a gross misunderstanding of what science is, and how it should be taught.
My views are obviously not popular at Slashdot. I expected no less and really don't care.
I do not misunderstand what science is. But I think we should at least agree that anything that is taught in school should be taught in an effort that some student, someday, might find the truth. You are doing a disservice to all students by intentionally excluding other explanations that, ultimately, might be right.
I agree science isn't the best place for the discussion--that's why I'd prefer a class called 'The origin of life' where all theories could be discussed, compared, and even complement each other. But if a special class on that topic isn't going to exist, the competing explanations for the origin of life need to be discussed where that topic is already being discussed. And that's currently in science class.
See, ranton, your OTHER post was not a troll. This is. And flamebait.
Your implication that only stupid, non-above-average people are religious is patently absurd and contradcits evidence to the contrary. Should we put together a list of extremely smart people over the ages that were religious?
I'd submit the opposite is true. Those that are smart enough to realize that the universe is infinitely incredible--and only becomes more incredible the more we supposedly learn--the less likely it is that this all just happened by accident.
Given that sicnce still don't have all the answers to the physical universe or even to our own planet, only a fool would presume to know that that same science could explain how it all began.
Not every time. Just when they are. You were not trolling. The other two people were. I think you can see the difference in the content of each post.
And with beliefs such as yours, it is no woner that you have alot of differing opinions with alot of people.
Actually, they don't differ with all that many... Except on Slashdot. Then they usually clash violently. That's what happens with a conservative Christian (NOT fundamentalist!) hangs around in a liberal, atheist stronghold.
Just because both religion and science have a different explanation for life does not mean both belong in a science classroom. All it could mean is that they both may belong in a class discussing the origin of life. But as for a science classroom, only science's theories should be discussed. As soon as another theory for the origin of life is found it will be discussed in classrooms right next to evolution. But no such theory exists.
Like I said, I would agree with you on virtually every point except on the origin of life. This is a place where religion and science intersect. I wouldn't be opposed to taking evolution out of science class and taking creationism/ID out of social studies and putting it in a single class called "The Origin of Life." That'd be fair. But I doubt it's going to happen. And to pretend that evolution is the only prevalent theory to the origin of life is to close your eyes to reality.
Religion's explanations should stay in sunday school classes and private religous schools where they belong.
What if those religious explanations are right? What if science is spinning its wheels by not accepting to even look at or consider a "larger picture" on this one issue?
What if science could eventually prove the existince of God? I don't pretend to know how that could happen and I don't feel like getting into a philisophical debate, but what if science eventually did that as a result of considering evolution as well as as how that might fit in with some religious beliefs that supposedly explain the origin of life? As it is now, science automatically shuts down as soon as someone mentions God. It artificially limits the potential expanse of science.
In the end, there is only one truth. I wonder if science will actually dare to find it or if it will avoid perhaps the single most important truth in the universe on philisophical grounds? Science, to some, IS a religion. And THAT is a problem.
I think you disagree with me a tad, not Jesus. That verse was about someone spending money on Jesus in person while He was here with us and it sure sounds to me like He was saying it was ok to spend money on Him now because he wouldn't always be here. That hardly makes any sense if you want to try to use that same verse to justify ignoring the poor forever in favor of spending money on making your church pretty.
We believe that Christ's true physical presence exists in the Eucharist.
And as such I have no problem with the vessels used for Eucharist being appropriately elaborate. But that doesn't mean that excessive adornment throughout the entire building and with statutes (idols?) and decorations that have nothing to do with Jesus is appropriate.
Why should we treat him any differently than Mary of Bethany? Giving money, service, and faith to the poor is very good, but so is treating Christ with the majesty He deserves.
And you think that is accomplished with money? Hmmm.
Though we can never be truly perfect, or worship God to the degree he deserves, we should make a best effort.
I believe that's a personal, spiritual effort that has no bearing on money. Where two or more congregate in His name, there He is present. There is no indication that some amount of gold makes a difference.
That was specifically about spending money on expensive oil on Jesus--that's why He said "The poor will always be with you." I.e., HE will not. That's why it was ok to use expensive oil on Jesus himself. If He were referring to the physical posessions of church, He wouldn't have said something to imply that His presence was temporary.
That you liken the physical material buildings of the Catholic Church with the original body of Christ is worrisome. Maybe things haven't changed so much in the last 500 years. :)
You: Again...bullshit. Science is science and religion is religion. The two cannot be mixed.
Like I said, people like you are as much of a threat to knowledge and truth as those that would, on their religious beliefs, attempt to ban evolution from the classroom.
Religion has an explanation for the origin of life and science has an explanation for the origin of life. If you cannot see why it is foolish to discuss either explanation without mentioning the other, your intellectual capacity and desire to find the truth is so low that your opinion doesn't matter anyway.
Thanks for trolling.
Anyway...
ID propagandists must be attacked in the same way that, for instance, white-supremacist/neo-nazi/neo-fascist ideologues are attacked.
Yes. And all those groups should be dealt with in the voting booth and with rational discussion. And, yes, that requires discussion. Something that a lot of people at Slashdot don't even want to seem to do when it comes to talking about intelligent design.
They are nutjobs hell-bent (no pun intended) on dismantling the basis of rational, secular civilization and all the advances of modern science.
Funny, after that sentence it rather sounds like you that is the radical nutjob.
I don't care what your religion is or what you choose to believe, but when you try to force your worldview on me or society as a whole, I will attack you with whatever tactics I have at my disposal.
I'll agree that no-one should force their religion or worldview on anyone else. But you should also not attempt to prevent the concept and beliefs from being discussed in public schools. For better or for worse, there are people that believe in evolution, creationism, and others that believe in this "intelligent design" concept. Mock any of those groups all you want, but we are doing a disservice to students if we intentionally omit any of these theories from our schools.
Now there are those that will say, "Sure, but do it in a mythology class." Right there, that's an inappropriate judgement that just shows that certain people are afraid to have the debate at all. They feel safer if it is pre-ordained that creationism or ID is a myth.
Is creationism or ID scientific? I would say probably not. But the origin of life is one of the few places where religion and science must intersect. While I disagree, some people would claim that science and religion offer competing views to the origin of life. As such, it is entirely inappropriate to discuss one without at least touching on the other.
If the purpose of learning and science is ultimately to ascertain the truth, it would be wrong to limit the exposure of students to only a single explanation under the excuse that it's the only "scientific" explanation. It doesn't matter if it is scientific if it's wrong, and it would be against the ideals of science to use science as an excuse to attempt to block the discussion of other explanations.
In short, the origin of life is a "special case" of science and religion. Those that want to try to drive evolution out of the classroom and those that want to keep intelligent design or creationism out of the classroom are being driven by their respective beliefs and not by an honest interest in seeking out the truth.
When it comes to what's taught in classrooms, both the anti-ID and anti-evolution factions are equally to be despised.
As a life-long protestant who has been attending Catholic mass for the last 10 years after marrying a Catholic...
Understand that while the Catholic Church almost signularly represented Christianity for over 1000 years, it didn't always do so in a very Christian manner. Quite the opposite in many cases. The Protestant branch of the Christian faith originated precisely because of the Catholic Chruch's poor stewardship of the faith.
Things are improved today as compared to 500 years ago, but you still need only walk into a Catholic church and a Protestant church to see the difference in priorities. As a general rule, the Catholic churches still spend way too much money on ornaments and decorations and material objects in the church. This money could be much better used for helping the poor and taking the faith to the unbelievers.
Anyway, I digress...
That the Vatican would have an opinion that disagrees with Fundamentalists is a complete non-story. These two groups of Christians believe in two different things--otherwise, two separate groups wouldn't exist in the first place!
I personally don't follow the big bang/evolution/Intelligent design debate closely, but the Vatican's statement is not a blow to intelligent design and it does not help evolution. It simply doesn't matter.
Don't be pedantic.
Bingo!
Like I said, you'd have to implement absolutely draconian measures to close this hole. You'd have to ban A/D converters... but those have huge uses outside of the music/movie industry. You'd have to ban software... but those have huge uses outside of the music/movie industry.
Simply, there's no way for the **AA to achieve what it wants through legislation. Technology has made them obsolete and technology will run over and flatten legislation every time.
Perhaps. I think finding the sourrce of an MPEG or MP3 is substantially harder than backtracking virus propagation.
If a bunch of instant-gratification idiots didn't think they were entitled to anything and everything they could get their hands on, we wouldn't be in this mess. All it does is give the **AA's all the justification they need to have these ridiculous laws passed.
Doesn't matter. Even if the "instant-gratification idiots" shouldn't do what they do, that doesn't make it ok or reasonable for the **AA to do what they try to do. The laws won't be passed to achieve the goals the **AA want and even if they are, they tend to have the opposite effect by forcing customers to get the ripped MP3 (so they can use it on their MP3 player) off the Internet.
Again, if I normally buy CDs, rip them, and load them on my MP3 player... then all the sudden it's no longer possible to rip my CDs... am I going to stop using my MP3 player? No, of course not. I'm going to get my MP3s from wherever I can find MP3s... and if that's on P2P, that's where I'm going. Now the only question is whether people will be so ethical as to bother buying a CD (that they'll never use) for every MP3 they download. I doubt they will.
A bunch of freeloaders are screwing up MY fair use rights and MY consumer products.
BULLSHIT! The **AA is trying to screw with your fair use rights. Yes, they're doing to in an irrational response to freeloaders but that does NOT make the **AA justified in screwing with fair use rights. They (the **AA) need to find a way to be profitable within the limits of the law and within the scope of current technology or find something else to do.
And because, like you, they think they're smart enough to game the system, they're going to screw up P2P, torrents, Freenet, and probably the internet itself.
Not at all. There are growing pains, of course, and the RIAA (I have more problems with the RIAA than with the MPAA) will try to stick to its old, obsolete model as much as possible for as long as possible. But it's a lost cause. Technology has made their very existence virtually obsolete. Yes, they'll try to screw with P2P, torrents, and everything else in an effort of self-preservation. And they may have limited success for a limited amount of time, but it's a fight they cannot win. In my opinion, it's a fight they shouldn't win.
Regardless of the laws that are passed, the RIAA is doomed. The RIAA formed at a time when bands needed them to get their music out and customers needed them to get the music from. Neither the bands nor the customers need them anymore. That's the simple reality. The RIAA survives only on inertia and they can only do that for a limited amount of time. Some amount of spasms, kicks, and groans from the industry is to be expected as it dies.