Political enemies will "accidentally" show up on this list, and then the mistake will be corrected.
However by that time every page they have on US Internet sites will be deleted.
Great way to stifle dissent.
Because they're better for the environment. If there's an electrical crisis it's California's fault for not building enough power plants. And they should be building them.
Nobody's arguing evolution as a process is invalid - the contention is whether or not it's the mechanism by which we came to be. No mental gymnastics involved. You'd do well to understand the distinction before looking down on said grad students and professors.
Speaking of "If God is almighty, can he create a stone he can't lift?", you know that question assumes God is inside the system. Which isn't necessarily true. For a God acting from outside the system, the answer is 'no'. But it doesn't bring up any contradiction. For inside the system, a more appropriate question is "If God is almighty, can he create a stone Jesus can't lift?"...where the answer is probably 'yes'.
For what it's worth, "the Earth is 6500 years old" doesn't conflict with productive science.
There's no technology you can build or sell where that question matters at all, and that's what drives economies. That's scientifically-based reconstruction of history, not science. You don't have a time machine, and you can't reproduce it. Only extrapolation is possible. It may work, it may not.
Many Fundie preachers try to make out science and learning as enemies. Yes, they're doing the nation a great disservice. But honestly I think it's just another manifestation of American anti-intellectualism, which we've had with us for many decades now.
The political climate would improve a lot if "science advocates" would stop trying to force theory onto Fundamentalists. It wouldn't hurt at all to put "Evidence such as rock Y suggests X because Z" instead of "We know X" in textbooks, and ask "According to B, what is C?" instead of "What is C?". Nothing is certain and often it is presented as such. Let people judge for themselves. Yes there is plenty of supporting evidence, but "science advocates" of the sort involved in primary and secondary education are trying to turn scientific inquiry into a church of its own by introducing certainty that doesn't belong in the process. And that's harmful.
So what I'm really trying to say is that the climate caused by the evolution debate is harmful to "saving US science", and no answer to the debate is relevant to that saving. But it's the first thing everyone brings up.
Who's to say that these 'tribal leaders' speak for everyone using the Mapuche edition of Windows?
They don't 'own' their language any more than Prince Charles owns British English or the Pope
owns the Bible.
Now, if they have control over trade within the "Mapuche nation" or whatever, this is a lot like
that ministry in France that says e-mail has to be called mail electronique, and they're welcome
to embargo Microsoft products, but it'd be ridiculous to say Microsoft can't make a French
version that uses the word e-mail. Maybe they prefer it that way in Quebec, and it's none of
the French government's damn business.
Further, even if we *suppose* that copyrights can be applied in this way, unless their "ancient
Indian tribe" is 40 years old their copyright is loooooong expired.
Mm. This is true. It's the only reason I can't in good conscience vote Democrat.
Well, that and, if we suppose global warming to be man-made and real, the lack of support for nuclear energy. But primarily it's the abortion issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Political enemies will "accidentally" show up on this list, and then the mistake will be corrected. However by that time every page they have on US Internet sites will be deleted. Great way to stifle dissent.
Because they're better for the environment. If there's an electrical crisis it's California's fault for not building enough power plants. And they should be building them.
Nobody's arguing evolution as a process is invalid - the contention is whether or not it's the mechanism by which we came to be. No mental gymnastics involved. You'd do well to understand the distinction before looking down on said grad students and professors.
Speaking of "If God is almighty, can he create a stone he can't lift?", you know that question assumes God is inside the system. Which isn't necessarily true. For a God acting from outside the system, the answer is 'no'. But it doesn't bring up any contradiction. For inside the system, a more appropriate question is "If God is almighty, can he create a stone Jesus can't lift?" ...where the answer is probably 'yes'.
For what it's worth, "the Earth is 6500 years old" doesn't conflict with productive science.
There's no technology you can build or sell where that question matters at all, and that's what drives economies. That's scientifically-based reconstruction of history, not science. You don't have a time machine, and you can't reproduce it. Only extrapolation is possible. It may work, it may not.
Many Fundie preachers try to make out science and learning as enemies. Yes, they're doing the nation a great disservice. But honestly I think it's just another manifestation of American anti-intellectualism, which we've had with us for many decades now.
The political climate would improve a lot if "science advocates" would stop trying to force theory onto Fundamentalists. It wouldn't hurt at all to put "Evidence such as rock Y suggests X because Z" instead of "We know X" in textbooks, and ask "According to B, what is C?" instead of "What is C?". Nothing is certain and often it is presented as such. Let people judge for themselves. Yes there is plenty of supporting evidence, but "science advocates" of the sort involved in primary and secondary education are trying to turn scientific inquiry into a church of its own by introducing certainty that doesn't belong in the process. And that's harmful.
So what I'm really trying to say is that the climate caused by the evolution debate is harmful to "saving US science", and no answer to the debate is relevant to that saving. But it's the first thing everyone brings up.
Who's to say that these 'tribal leaders' speak for everyone using the Mapuche edition of Windows? They don't 'own' their language any more than Prince Charles owns British English or the Pope owns the Bible. Now, if they have control over trade within the "Mapuche nation" or whatever, this is a lot like that ministry in France that says e-mail has to be called mail electronique, and they're welcome to embargo Microsoft products, but it'd be ridiculous to say Microsoft can't make a French version that uses the word e-mail. Maybe they prefer it that way in Quebec, and it's none of the French government's damn business. Further, even if we *suppose* that copyrights can be applied in this way, unless their "ancient Indian tribe" is 40 years old their copyright is loooooong expired.
Mm. This is true. It's the only reason I can't in good conscience vote Democrat. Well, that and, if we suppose global warming to be man-made and real, the lack of support for nuclear energy. But primarily it's the abortion issue.