Hmmm. Looks like reality is not quite as entertaining as playing Halo. Sometimes when people find out I'm a combat veteran the ask, "Have you ever killed anybody?" as if taking another human life is no big deal.
I can understand your point. But if both candidates are found to have the same problem, then the whole exercise becomes futile. You're still back to square one.
My point is that if you really care about the election in question, you've probably already made up your mind. And if you haven't made up your mind, this kind of thing isn't very helpful because both candidates will be shown to be equally guilty of flip-flopping on issues.
I can't believe people waste their lives on stuff like this. Presumably it's done in order to convince undecided voters that one candidate is worse than the other because he flip-flops on some issue. But I would expect that undecided voters have better things to do than to read through web page comparisons, or watch hours of video comparisons.
ID does not discard evolution, not entirely anyway. And proponents of ID (such as myself) do not believe in any way that the universe was created 6000 years ago. That is creationism, and creationism and ID are not the same thing. This is part of the problem.
Of course the universe is roughly 14bn years old. Of course it's possible that humans evolved from lower life forms. But when it comes to how life began in the first place, or how extremely complex organisms suddenly appear out of nowhere, evolutionary theory is insufficient. There appears to be some sort of intelligence behind the design. The question is, "what is it"?
There are plenty of well-informed and intelligent people who cannot definitively answer the question of how life began. However, you correctly state that they have no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative. To have no doubt in evolution without knowing exactly how it is accomplished is an indication of belief. The teachers, therefore, are already teaching children what some people believe.
There are plenty of well-informed and intelligent people who question certain points of evolution. This includes Richard Dawkins who suggests that it is possible that life was seeded on Earth by some unknown external entity. When asked where that external entity came from, Dawkins doesn't know. Apparently, for Dawkins, and others, it's turtles all the way down.
There is also no difference between the following answers to the question "how did life come to be?"
1. Natural selection. 2. We don't know.
That is because natural selection cannot explain some important biological constructs. Ultimately, Darwinism comes down to a belief, not unlike intelligent design.
Yes, I do understand the concept of science. ID says that there are mechanisms in nature which appear to have intelligence behind their makeup. That intelligence may be from a creator, or it may be from some yet undiscovered cause. We don't know yet. What we do know is that Darwinism fails to explain the existence of some biological constructs.
You say that science is all about questioning, but the minute someone questions Darwinism they are labeled "ignorant", "superstitious", and the like. And if they are scientists are are ostracized, stripped of their tenure, or silenced in some other way.
I am appalled at the acrimonious nature of so many posts when a subject like this comes up. Is Darwinism so sacrosanct that it can never be questioned?
There are questions that Darwinism cannot answer. Intelligent Design is about a search for the answers to those questions. Intelligent design theory does not say that the universe is too complex to be explained by evolution. Many things are very complex. A pile of sand is complex, for instance. And a pile of sand might evolve if more sand were dumped on the pile every day. What separates one type of complexity (such as a pile of sand) from another type of complexity (such as a living organism) is that one type seems to require some kind of intelligence. In that respect, the universe and a good book seem to have more in common than a sand pile has to either of them.
Basically the only place to get the textbooks were from the school bookstore. You must understand that this was long before there was an Amazon.com, or even an internet.
It's been a number of years since I worked as an adjunct professor, but even then textbooks were outrageously expensive. I didn't even want to specify textbooks for my classes, but the school administration would always force me to pick one to use for the course. The reason was that the school made money from every textbook sold. It killed me to force struggling students to purchase expensive textbooks that they would hardly use, but I didn't have much choice. In a way it was as if the school was hiding part of their tuition within the book costs.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing about movies on USB keys: At least they won't be scratched like they can be on DVDs.
...the balaclava 'could be used to conceal someone's identity...
So could a pair of Groucho glasses. Those are next.
Rollerball!
"Rat-Brained Robots" would make a good name for a punk band.
Mr. President, we must not allow a broadband gap!
Maintaining access to the space station? Bah! That would require planning. Planning is for sissies. We're 'Mericans, dammit!
I agree completely. I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Hmmm. Looks like reality is not quite as entertaining as playing Halo. Sometimes when people find out I'm a combat veteran the ask, "Have you ever killed anybody?" as if taking another human life is no big deal.
Each one comes with a free leisure suit.
"Contractor Tells NASA To Piss Off"
I can understand your point. But if both candidates are found to have the same problem, then the whole exercise becomes futile. You're still back to square one.
My point is that if you really care about the election in question, you've probably already made up your mind. And if you haven't made up your mind, this kind of thing isn't very helpful because both candidates will be shown to be equally guilty of flip-flopping on issues.
I can't believe people waste their lives on stuff like this. Presumably it's done in order to convince undecided voters that one candidate is worse than the other because he flip-flops on some issue. But I would expect that undecided voters have better things to do than to read through web page comparisons, or watch hours of video comparisons.
A lot of people are calling this "vaporware", and yet there are these guys, who are actually doing about the same thing already.
ID does not discard evolution, not entirely anyway. And proponents of ID (such as myself) do not believe in any way that the universe was created 6000 years ago. That is creationism, and creationism and ID are not the same thing. This is part of the problem.
Of course the universe is roughly 14bn years old. Of course it's possible that humans evolved from lower life forms. But when it comes to how life began in the first place, or how extremely complex organisms suddenly appear out of nowhere, evolutionary theory is insufficient. There appears to be some sort of intelligence behind the design. The question is, "what is it"?
overtly Catholic
Good grief. And I'm accused of being revisionist.
There are plenty of well-informed and intelligent people who cannot definitively answer the question of how life began. However, you correctly state that they have no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative. To have no doubt in evolution without knowing exactly how it is accomplished is an indication of belief. The teachers, therefore, are already teaching children what some people believe.
There are plenty of well-informed and intelligent people who question certain points of evolution. This includes Richard Dawkins who suggests that it is possible that life was seeded on Earth by some unknown external entity. When asked where that external entity came from, Dawkins doesn't know. Apparently, for Dawkins, and others, it's turtles all the way down.
Thanks for making my point. You are as closed minded as you are rude.
1930-1940s Germany
Interesting you should cite this example, that is, an atheistic regime whose ideas were drawn heavily from Darwinism.
There is also no difference between the following answers to the question "how did life come to be?"
1. Natural selection.
2. We don't know.
That is because natural selection cannot explain some important biological constructs. Ultimately, Darwinism comes down to a belief, not unlike intelligent design.
Yes, I do understand the concept of science. ID says that there are mechanisms in nature which appear to have intelligence behind their makeup. That intelligence may be from a creator, or it may be from some yet undiscovered cause. We don't know yet. What we do know is that Darwinism fails to explain the existence of some biological constructs.
You say that science is all about questioning, but the minute someone questions Darwinism they are labeled "ignorant", "superstitious", and the like. And if they are scientists are are ostracized, stripped of their tenure, or silenced in some other way.
Thank you for proving my point.
I am appalled at the acrimonious nature of so many posts when a subject like this comes up. Is Darwinism so sacrosanct that it can never be questioned?
There are questions that Darwinism cannot answer. Intelligent Design is about a search for the answers to those questions. Intelligent design theory does not say that the universe is too complex to be explained by evolution. Many things are very complex. A pile of sand is complex, for instance. And a pile of sand might evolve if more sand were dumped on the pile every day. What separates one type of complexity (such as a pile of sand) from another type of complexity (such as a living organism) is that one type seems to require some kind of intelligence. In that respect, the universe and a good book seem to have more in common than a sand pile has to either of them.
Basically the only place to get the textbooks were from the school bookstore. You must understand that this was long before there was an Amazon.com, or even an internet.
It's been a number of years since I worked as an adjunct professor, but even then textbooks were outrageously expensive. I didn't even want to specify textbooks for my classes, but the school administration would always force me to pick one to use for the course. The reason was that the school made money from every textbook sold. It killed me to force struggling students to purchase expensive textbooks that they would hardly use, but I didn't have much choice. In a way it was as if the school was hiding part of their tuition within the book costs.
'It takes time to figure out how best to use metal.'
I don't think it took too much time to figure out that the best use of bronze was to make it sharp and run someone through with it.