RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 8937
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2008,15:41   

Quote
15 September 2008
The Church of England apologizes to Darwin
Lord Ickenham

Dear gentle reader,

As someone who has had an ongoing struggle with the Anglican Communion his entire adult life, and to whom the current, obvious, and slow-motion destruction of the entire historical Anglican Church brings no joy, I have a few comments on the anticipated apology of the Church of England, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to Charles Darwin.  Despite indications to the contrary, this clearly has had some thought put into it, as evidenced by the Darwin section of the Church of England and website:

   “Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. “


# As perceptive observers have already pointed out, there is no historical reason for the Church of England to make an apology to Charles Darwin – please remember that he was awarded an honorary degree from Cambridge, and is buried at Westminster Abbey.  There was no persecution, no censure, only debates.   Thus the apology for “misunderstanding”.
# This fact then begs the question: What on earth is going on?
# The answer is that this move attempts to accomplish three things.  First, as is explicitly stated, it makes a condemnation of those wrong-thinking people that are under the impression there is a conflict between Christian teaching and Darwinian theory by “apologizing”, rather than make the statement directly.  Second, it attempts to put the Anglican Communion on par with the Roman Catholic Church in regard to the Galileo affair.  Third, the well-written meat of the website by Revd Dr Malcolm Brown gives coaching on how to be a Christian and a Darwinist.  To his credit, he also discusses the `dark side’ of Darwin, concluding “his [Darwin’s] theory … has been inflated into a general theory of everything – which is not only erroneous but dangerous.”
# The bigger question is why Rowan Williams and other senior figures in the C of E feel that they need to make the apology.  After studying the actions of this man after he became archbishop of Canterbury, my answer to this question is the same to the motives of numerous other inexplicable actions he has made:  It makes no sense and I cannot discern any thoughtful leadership.  The only straw I can grasp is that the idea sounds good to a certain mindset, that it puts the C of E in the news, and gives him praise from some in positions of secular authority (though evidently the opposite has happened).  Perhaps he was thinking there has been a constant stream of bad news about the Anglican Communion in the press, and this would be a nice break.  What he doesn’t seem to appreciate is that it is precisely this kind of ridiculous statement (regardless of your views on theology or science) that is a symptom of the larger detachment from reality within the majority of the Anglican church of England, the US, and Canada.

The C of E has apologized for misunderstanding Darwin. Considering the website quotation from Bishop Rayfield, “Theology and science each have much to contribute in the assertion of the Psalmist that we are ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’”, I suspect that most Darwinian biologists would comment that the C of E misunderstands Darwin even today.


Linky

   
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2008,16:30   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 15 2008,19:27)
In the fantomarks thread, DaveScot writes,

 
Quote
Let’s give alternate representations of reality weight commensurate with physical evidence in support of it. In the case of fantomarks that’s not equal time it’s zero time.


Let's remember that one!  

I can think of some other words that would substitute well here for "fantomarks."

I think DS needs to be reminded that:

 
Quote
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. etc. etc. etc.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2008,21:59   

who is this Lord Ickenham douchebag?

sayeth this crappage

Quote
Frederick Altamont Cornwallis Twistleton, 5th Earl of Ickenham is a fictional character from the short stories and novels of P. G. Wodehouse.

His main talent is impersonation: in his time he has impersonated Edwin Smith, of 14 Nastursium Road, East Dulwich; a veterinarian come to clip the claws of a parrot at The Cedars, Mafeking Road, Mitching Hill; the resident of the same address; Mr. J. B. Bulstrode, a neighbor of same; and he claims he would have impersonated the parrot as well, on broad impressionistic lines.

He has also masqueraded as Major Brabazon-Plank, the famed explorer, and as his older brother Brabazon-Plank Major, a mining engineer. (Hence, in the argot of the English public school, Brabzon-Plank Major is a miner while Brabson-Plank Minor is a major.)

Furthermore, he has once taken on the identity of Sir Roderick Glossop at Blandings in order to resolve a series of complications, and did so with such elegance and style that no one else besides himself ever knew the full story.

His other exploits include shooting off an old classmates hat with a Brazilian nut and the precision of a Amazonian hunter, conning slow-minded Lord Bosham off his wallet just for the sake of it, and happily breaking up an engagement between his nephew Pongo and the ghastly Hermione Bostock. All of them have rendered said nephew in constant fear of his uncle, and permanently convinced him of his elder's lunacy.


sounds like a lunatic impostor.  Who could that be?  Hmmmmmmmmm?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
stevestory



Posts: 8937
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2008,22:14   

I was sad to see those r-tards use a PG Wodehouse character as a pseudonym. But then I remembered a line from a recent Booknotes.

Quote
You get into terrifically bad company some of the time if you're a fan of Wodehouse.

--Christopher Hitchens


I think UD counts.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8937
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,00:07   

Quote
12 September 2008
Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism
O'Leary


Several UD commenters have pointed out that Denyse and Casey are basically lying about several details in this case. The last comment in the thread currently says

Quote


17

William Wallace

09/15/2008

11:06 pm

Oh, and, uh, did the teacher get fired, or re-assigned?


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-295608


Think the UD crowd will ever catch on to the fact that Expelled was also a series of lies?

   
stevestory



Posts: 8937
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,00:09   

Maybe Robert Marks is Lord Ickenham. Marks needs a new pseudonym after botching his previous one.

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1977
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,01:14   

I don't think Lord Ickenham is Marks.  The writing is too mature.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,10:11   

Whoa now, abiogenesis and evolution = TEH SAME THING???

Anticipating the inevitable "omg, but the equations were designed" objection from UD.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,10:29   

Quote (Seizure Salad @ Sep. 16 2008,08:11)
Whoa now, abiogenesis and evolution = TEH SAME THING???

Anticipating the inevitable "omg, but the equations were designed" objection from UD.

I wish that people would not present their research to journalists as if it were totally new and without precedent

For example;

Davis, B.
2002 "Molecular evolution before the origin of species."
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. May-Jul;79(1-3):77-133

or

Mulkidjanian, Armen Y.,  Dmitry A Cherepanov, Michael Y Galperin
2003  "Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: Selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light"  BMC Evolutionary Biology 2003 3:12 (published 28 May 2003)

Edited by Dr.GH on Sep. 16 2008,08:32

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,10:43   

I doubt they do very often Dr GH. It's the journalists. I've met journalists, it has to be "new" or how else can they print it? How may "overturn Darwin/Newton/Einstein" stories do we see every year in the popular press?

For example, have you ever seen a movie that wasn't a "major new production"? It's marketing bollocks. Like the word "natural" for another example. What does the word "natural" even mean? Especially when combined with the word "goodness". Is there natural goodness in willow bark? How about foxgloves? What about psilocybin?* Wheat? Meat? Bananas? It's all just window dressing bollocks, packaging. The interesting part is packaging has a measurable effect....

You and I know it isn't "new", you and I know that presenting it as "new" is potentially destructive, and certainly grist to the mill of the deliberately dishonest like creationists. But New Scientist has got to sell mags right? It's a blinding bloody tragedy in many ways, but even more tragically it's one of our own making.

I'm feeling unusually cynical today for some reason! ;-)

Louis

*I'd argue there's lots of natural goodness in those dammit!

--------------
Bye.

  
Leftfield



Posts: 98
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,16:17   

Quote
22

bFast

09/16/2008

12:59 pm
StephenB, “because homosexuality violates the natural moral law.”

How do you figure?

23

StephenB

09/16/2008

1:30 pm
—-”How do you figure.”

I am not going to stretch out on that one without the expressed permission of UD administrators. Suffice it to say, that until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a diagnostic disorder. That was before political pressure put these kinds of discussions to an end. In any case, my broader point still holds: There is no such thing as a value free education.


American Psychiatric Association (pre-1973) = inerrant explicator of the natural moral law

OK, good to know where to turn for natural moral law answers.

ETA: From the "Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism" post, which of course tells the story of a teacher who was reassigned (not fired) because he refused to teach the prescribed curriculum  (not because of his privately expressed doubts about Darwinism). But apart from those minor quibbles, they're right on the money as ever.

--------------
Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

  
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,16:20   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,10:43)
I doubt they do very often Dr GH. It's the journalists. I've met journalists, it has to be "new" or how else can they print it? How may "overturn Darwin/Newton/Einstein" stories do we see every year in the popular press?

For example, have you ever seen a movie that wasn't a "major new production"? It's marketing bollocks. Like the word "natural" for another example. What does the word "natural" even mean? Especially when combined with the word "goodness". Is there natural goodness in willow bark? How about foxgloves? What about psilocybin?* Wheat? Meat? Bananas? It's all just window dressing bollocks, packaging. The interesting part is packaging has a measurable effect....

You and I know it isn't "new", you and I know that presenting it as "new" is potentially destructive, and certainly grist to the mill of the deliberately dishonest like creationists. But New Scientist has got to sell mags right? It's a blinding bloody tragedy in many ways, but even more tragically it's one of our own making.

I'm feeling unusually cynical today for some reason! ;-)

Louis

*I'd argue there's lots of natural goodness in those dammit!

Yes, and I and everything else is 100% pure.
   
Quote
The school’s purpose is to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic.

The three Rs, you hear me! Oops, oR is that fouR?
   
Quote
The bottom line remains that 11 snotty parents hated Religion so much they thought it was worth taking a million dollars from the school district so their children didn't have to be burdened with either hearing that 60 second blurb or excusing themselves from it.


I'm back! *Cough cough*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
JohnW



Posts: 2259
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,16:50   

Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 16 2008,14:20)
     
Quote
The school’s purpose is to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic.

The three Rs, you hear me! Oops, oR is that fouR?
     
Quote
The bottom line remains that 11 snotty parents hated Religion so much they thought it was worth taking a million dollars from the school district so their children didn't have to be burdened with either hearing that 60 second blurb or excusing themselves from it.

It's interesting to read that 2006 Ed Brayton piece on Dover, two years later.  This was interesting:
Quote
They keep trying to tell us that they're not anti-evolution. In fact, how many times has DaveScot himself said that comment descent - which is the theory of evolution - is true and that ID only challenges the idea that it was purposeless and unguided?

"DaveScot himself" - note the assumption that he's some sort of mover and shaker in the IDiocracy, and not just Dembski's manservant/henchman.  Do you suppose, in 2008, that anyone still believes that?  Even Dave?

Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 16 2008,14:20)
I'm back! *Cough cough*

From the consumptive ward at the sanatorium, apparently.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,17:03   

Just about! With this cough the past few weeks I'm the one who deserves the nicky "Barky."  :p  What a pity I don't like absinthe.

I also don't like Lord Icky and the Bad Metres
 
Quote
If Williams imagines we’ll eat his ambrosia
Whose saccharin sweetness is meant to bulldoze ya’
To champ, “Ain’t they a-nice,”
Then, he should heed my advice.
Repent and re-learn well-wrought apologia!

Tim, that stank, and I can't even breathe to smell it. Who the heck is Lord Ickenham? I've missed some things.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
JohnW



Posts: 2259
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,17:37   

Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 16 2008,15:03)
Who the heck is Lord Ickenham?

A character from Wodehouse: see here.  In this context, possibly Robert Marks, if we're willing to believe previously unhinted sophistication in the sense-of-humour department.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,18:34   

Some nice tard from sheldonr on the 'fantomarks' thread:
Quote
Third, he argues that recursion is essential to understanding cognition. It just so happens that I’ve abandonned a career in Space Physics to go back to seminary and make that same point in hermeneutics. If you want the background of Isaacson’s paper, (though not the terminology), read Hofstadter’s 1979 book, “Goedel, Escher, Bach”. It is worth reading in its own right, and quite enjoyable. The point Isaacson is drawing from that, is that recursion is inimical to linear, rationalistic logic. The proof lies in Goedel’s 1935 Incompleteness Theorem, which destroyed Bertrand Russell’s assault on metaphysics (because he was an atheist and really wanted to destroy God). Goedel demonstrated just how powerful recursion could be. This was the theme of Hofstadter’s book, which stressed the destructive nature of recursion. Isaacson wants to stress the constructive nature of recursion. He uses spatial cognition for his starting point.

He could have used aural cognition, as I did in a paper:
“Time, Eternity, and Quantum Mechanics”

but the point is that the brain converts a time-dependent aural, or a spatial-dependent signal into a frequency dependent signal by taking the Fourier transform. The brain then operates in frequency space rather than in time or spatial space. So Isaacson has the visual signal being processed recursively until he reaches a kernel, or a “limit-cycle” and it doesn’t compress anymore. Then the values of these kernel frequencies or limit-cycles encode the information in the visual. The information is still there, in a highly abstract way, but needs the same compression engine to perform the decompression. Thus the observer becomes essential to the information, the way a German Enigma cryptography machine is related to the encrypted message.

So now that we can view the brain as an Enigma machine, and the visual information as frequencies, what is to keep us from applying the same process to the neurons in the brain? What is to keep us from encoding ourselves? For that matter, perhaps what we observe is merely the encoded reality, and the more fundamental original version is the encoded one? (You know the old Chinese parable by Lao Tzu: I fell asleep and dreamt I was a butterfly who fell asleep and dreamt it was a man.)

And turning this inside out, what is to say that the observable universe is merely the encoding of a more fundamental frequency space?

Since we don’t have an answer to either Lao Tzu or Isaacson, perhaps the judicious thing to do is to give equal weight to both representations of reality. This was the thesis of TEQM, that God lives in frequency space, man in spatio-temporal space, and information / design / spirit is the Fourier transform / recursion that links the two representations.

Well, when I finish the thesis, I’ll certainly post the abstract here.

I'm sure the 'Space Physics' community is mourning its loss.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,19:05   

In response, autodidact DaveTard reveals that he forgot to autodiddle himself the concept of recursion:
Quote
Compression of visual snapshots through recursion of adjacent signal (pixel) similarity is essentially JPEG compression. Compress a stream of JPEG images by adding a recursive comparison of adjacent frames and that is essentially MPEG.

He goes on to brag about his patent (was there ever a truer exemplar of the old proverb 'pride goeth before a fall'?):    
Quote
That the human biological visual system works like a human artifactual visual system is no great surprise. Call it convergent engineering. I happen to have a patent where I mimiced part of the human visual processing system to decrease power consumption.

None of you will be surprised to hear that the patent has nothing whatsoever to do with 'mimicing' the human visual system.  It simply describes a method for making some objects on a display dimmer than others to save power.  For example, a window becomes brighter when you click on it while the other windows are dimmed.

This takes advantage of an aspect of the human visual system -- our attention is drawn to a bright object in a sea of dark objects --  but it hardly mimics the human visual system.

Davey, bragging about things you haven't done isn't going to impress anybody but the mouthbreathers.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1011
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,19:43   

From the "ouch that's gotta sting files":

Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design

Especially this part:

Quote
He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.


So, not only is ID bad science, but it's bad philosophy and theology as well...talk about expelled! :O

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
sparc



Posts: 1708
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,22:17   

afarensis    
Quote
Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design
Didn't you read the rest?    
Quote
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.
IMO the RCC holds just another ID position which differs from evangelical ID-creationists in two ways:
- rather then proclaiming design as the creation mechanism the RCC remains unclear about the mechanisms involved
- instead of refusing to name the designer in public the RCC is absolutely clear about his identity

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1011
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,22:25   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 16 2008,22:17)
afarensis    
Quote
Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design
Didn't you read the rest?    
Quote
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.
IMO the RCC holds just another ID position which differs from evangelical ID-creationists in two ways:
- rather then proclaiming design as the creation mechanism the RCC remains unclear about the mechanisms involved
- instead of refusing to name the designer in public the RCC is absolutely clear about his identity

Guilty :(  All I read was Lynch's write up. I'll just go sit in the corner and think about what I did wrong...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3566
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,22:25   

LOL.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
stevestory



Posts: 8937
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,01:30   

Frost discusses Fantomarks

Quote
I don’t think the answer to the quest for a qunta-qulatative understanding of intelligence will be found in recursive pattern loops. Although his epistemic original data point argument does seem to beg a tough question for the materialists which is better put this way…

At any given point of perception (consciouness) what physical character can we point to that would be correctly labeled pre-perception?
Any adequate attempt to explain answer this question via a purely materialistic explanation will break the rules of the no free lunch theorems hence it will be either inconsistent or incoherent or incomplete.


Well...something's incoherent...that's for sure...

Quote
I will write more later.


Greeeeeaaaaaattttttt.... ???

   
stevestory



Posts: 8937
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,01:46   

Holy &$%* this could be good. You're all of course familiar with this thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....rwinism

Quote
12 September 2008
Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism
O'Leary

Here’s a Discovery Institute podcast:

Quote
On this episode of ID The Future, CSC’s Casey Luskin interviews Rodney LeVake, the plaintiff in the Academic Freedom court case LeVake vs. Independent School District #656. LeVake, a former high school biology teacher, informally expressed doubts about evolution to a colleague who then reported him to the principal. LeVake ended up losing his biology position, not because he taught creationism or intelligent design, but merely because he expressed reservations about evolution to a colleague. Listen as he tells his story of clear academic persecution.


and we've all learned by now that LeVake wasn't ratted out for privately expressing doubts, and wasn't fired, and even some UD commenters are upset at the dishonesty of Casey and O'Leary.

Well, get a load of this comment:

Quote


25

Reg
UD Linky
09/16/2008

2:54 pm

Is this the same Rodney LeVake who was fired in 1998 for the same reason and whose appeals failed all the way to the supreme court? Or is the podcast about events 10 years ago - they seem very similar.



Poor innocent Rodney LeVake, huh?

(note: I suppose it could be a different creationist biology teacher named Rod LeVake...)

UPDATE: Denyse is reporting this like it's new. It's 10 years old.

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 17 2008,02:58

   
stevestory



Posts: 8937
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,01:53   

So much dumbassery, so little time.

Quote


24

DaveScot

09/16/2008

1:43 pm

What is the purpose of a school if not to produce a finished product in the form of a responsible citizen?

The school’s purpose is to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. The rest of the job is up to the parents and voluntary interaction within their community.


Really? No civics? No history? Chemistry? Biology? Economics? Calculus? Electronics? Art? Music? Agriculture? Driver's Ed?

wikipedia: (bolding mine)
Quote
# The three Rs, a widely-used abbreviation for the basic elements of a primary school curriculum: reading, ’riting (writing), and ’rithmetic (arithmetic)


wikipedia again:
Quote
In the United States, the term primary school is used in a general way to describe a school housing the primary grades, usually meaning kindergarten (ages five to six) to fifth or sixth grade (ages 10 to 11), though this is more commonly referred to as an elementary school.


Dave, I know you don't have much education, but there's this thing called High School. Maybe you heard of it? Had a jarhead buddy who went? Well, it's not primary school, and they do more than the 3 R's.

(ETA: link is same as above comment)

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 17 2008,03:00

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1670
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,02:03   

DaveScot's answer right above that one is pretty good too:
Quote
The school’s purpose is to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. The rest of the job is up to the parents and voluntary interaction within their community.
So forget science, civics, home ec, shop, foreign languages and everything else but the three rrrs.  Let their parents and churches (aka voluntary interaction with their community) take care of the rest.

Talk about a recipe for ignorance.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
stevestory



Posts: 8937
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,02:08   

The links to the Level 5 R-Tards at Answers in Genesis covering LeVake are hilarious:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4346news7-19-2000.asp

Quote
Time magazine gets it wrong again!

July 19, 2000

The global, newsweekly, Time magazine, has become such a humanistic, anti-Christian magazine that it affects its ability to objectively report on issues relating to Christianity.

...



and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0110news2.asp

Quote
Sadly, the US Supreme Court appears to be reaffirming its pattern of hostility toward the teaching of Christianity.


You know. Not that this has ANYTHING at all to do with religion. Whatever gave you that ridiculous idea?

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,02:23   

Quote

UPDATE: Denyse is reporting this like it's new. It's 10 years old.


Compared to how old the argument now known as "irreducible complexity" is, that's practically a newborn.

If one were into relativism, you know.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,07:00   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 16 2008,22:17)
afarensis      
Quote
Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design
Didn't you read the rest?      
Quote
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.
IMO the RCC holds just another ID position which differs from evangelical ID-creationists in two ways:
- rather then proclaiming design as the creation mechanism the RCC remains unclear about the mechanisms involved
- instead of refusing to name the designer in public the RCC is absolutely clear about his identity

It will be interesting to see who is invited (or not), so that we can get a better idea what the Vatican means by that description "overly scientific"...

I suspect it means Ken Miller will be invited, but not Richard Dawkins. Wait and see, I guess.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,09:05   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 16 2008,22:17)
afarensis      
Quote
Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design
Didn't you read the rest?      
Quote
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.
IMO the RCC holds just another ID position which differs from evangelical ID-creationists in two ways:
- rather then proclaiming design as the creation mechanism the RCC remains unclear about the mechanisms involved
- instead of refusing to name the designer in public the RCC is absolutely clear about his identity

"Overly scientific"?

What's that?  :)  Can I get some in liquid form? Maybe it'll change me back into human form.  :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3566
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,09:21   

Only Pope that matters is the Pope of Columbia Street.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]