I love how this article is formulated to offend as much as possible the "oh nos! irrational (read: any) religious people." Yet although actively religious people are often conservative and conservatives often think global warming is exaggerated it doesn't mean there is a connection between the two. Global warming may be just as Al Gore says, yet opposition to this view doesn't stem from religious beliefs. A more likely explanation is the desire to maintain the status quo on the level of individual lifesyles and the national economy, wrong as this view may be. There are, one should note, significant exceptions to the stereotype. An example is the signed statement of Evangelicals concerned about global warming. Evolution, of course, is a different story. That is not, however, what this article is about and conflating the two issues doesn't help at all.
The upgrade from 98 to XP was a no brainer because of how much more stable and quick XP was. Vista honestly has nothing I want. The longer they take the better since I heard that the next DirectX will be Vista only, probably just to piss me off when I can't play new games.
The profound ignorance and bias this subject brings up on both sides of the issue is always astonishing. Never
even a mention of information theory. It's almost as if people heard "intelligent design" and started criticizing
before anyone explained what they meant by it.
It's amazing that you even think you're part of the political discourse with comments like this. Complaining that we should give all our secrets to our enemies and saying that a theocracy will develop if we don't isn't just uninformed, it's childish and petty as well.
I've been searching through this story for a reply that actually addresses the claims that ID makes and have yet to find one. I just keep hearing "it's creationism." Which is clearly false. It is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis, so people need to dismiss that charge. It reminds me of reading the Lost World by Michael Crichton when he said that evolution occuring unguided would be equivalent to a twister tearing through a junkyard and assembling a working 747 and immediately and baselessly dismissed a designer as an alternative. People are simply scared of the implications. This isn't really important to me either way. My faith wouldn't be harmed in the least if ID was false. I had it, after all, before anyone expounded ID.
My point is that if you're going to debate something you would do well to at least show you understand the concept. Further statements of "well there really is no debate" are not going to convince anyone who thinks there may be.
Slashdot Mirror
I love how this article is formulated to offend as much as possible the "oh nos! irrational (read: any) religious people." Yet although actively religious people are often conservative and conservatives often think global warming is exaggerated it doesn't mean there is a connection between the two. Global warming may be just as Al Gore says, yet opposition to this view doesn't stem from religious beliefs. A more likely explanation is the desire to maintain the status quo on the level of individual lifesyles and the national economy, wrong as this view may be. There are, one should note, significant exceptions to the stereotype. An example is the signed statement of Evangelicals concerned about global warming. Evolution, of course, is a different story. That is not, however, what this article is about and conflating the two issues doesn't help at all.
I thought irrational hatred of religion was the one thing that bound the many threads of Slashdot together? :)
The upgrade from 98 to XP was a no brainer because of how much more stable
and quick XP was. Vista honestly has nothing I want. The longer they take
the better since I heard that the next DirectX will be Vista only, probably
just to piss me off when I can't play new games.
The profound ignorance and bias this subject brings up on both sides of the issue is always astonishing. Never even a mention of information theory. It's almost as if people heard "intelligent design" and started criticizing before anyone explained what they meant by it.
It's amazing that you even think you're part of the political discourse with comments like this. Complaining that we should give all our secrets to our enemies and saying that a theocracy will develop if we don't isn't just uninformed, it's childish and petty as well.
I've been searching through this story for a reply that actually addresses the claims that ID makes and have yet to find one. I just keep hearing "it's creationism." Which is clearly false. It is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis, so people need to dismiss that charge. It reminds me of reading the Lost World by Michael Crichton when he said that evolution occuring unguided would be equivalent to a twister tearing through a junkyard and assembling a working 747 and immediately and baselessly dismissed a designer as an alternative. People are simply scared of the implications. This isn't really important to me either way. My faith wouldn't be harmed in the least if ID was false. I had it, after all, before anyone expounded ID. My point is that if you're going to debate something you would do well to at least show you understand the concept. Further statements of "well there really is no debate" are not going to convince anyone who thinks there may be.