|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: International Aspects of Creationism/ID | |||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
RazD writes: People are welcome to their beliefs, but they do not get to say their beliefs are more valid than reality If you go here (Msg 94)I suspect you will find someone who does. EZ This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-15-2005 10:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It suffers a little as english is his second language but is an improvement on US stuff It suffers even more as science does not appear to be part of his knowledge base. I'm not sure why you think its an improvement on US stuff, as most of it appealed to US sources. In any case, thanks for the info. Now I get to torture my dutch gf with evidence for more lame-os over here. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Do you know anything particular about this work?
I found it quite curious that I didnt see (perhaps I didnt look at enough of the pages(this is a real possibility) anything "new" about the origin of genetic information (genetic variance) as on the abcissus of his graphing AND YET he dedicated the book to Dawkins. Is this really a creationist tract and not hoax like Chardin's piltown man where he didnt reaveal the rub for some years even after many knew?? Lewontin also in related matters would use a different pen name when writing to NYTImes book review. The clue for figuring this out myself is that he speaks of "inbreeding" "on top" etc but if you can confirm that 50% is creationist while explaning the Dawkins reference without a meme of it I would appreciate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
heh. I should clarify: they get to state what they want, but it doesn't give it any more credibiilty than the ravings of a madman at the reflection of the moon in a well and listening to his own echoes without independent evidence that reality substantiates the position.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6444 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
quote: 1. He is not a biblical literalist, for a start. A much better stsrting point as the common ground is bigger. 2. He at least makes an attempt to explain kinds in a way which may one day be accessible to scientific enquiry. I gotta ask what you see in US stuff that is better than his book?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6444 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
quote:I have read some parts of the book. quote: I think that Us style fundamenatist creationists tend to see anyone who does not agree with them as evil }( The Dutch , from my own experience, and by reputation perhaps are not so insecure.He probably enjoys dawkins writings and is not afraid to appreciate the good things about it whilst disagreeing with the extent of evolution. He also gives evil Darwin quite a good rap as well. quote: Aw...don't be so suspicious. Despite evilutionist dogma, the world is full of people who find life coming from non life and microbes turning into men quite ..well....unbelievable, and there are a variety of attempted solutions.Fundamentalists may just be good at marketing themsleves. quote: 50% cretinist , 90% cretinist, 10 % cretinist, how does one tell the difference. I honestly don't know. I doubt whther the author has read any AIG material, he is just one guy who doubts "evilution" and attempted to give a better alternative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok, I wont be that suspicious.
I guess he derived his idea BECAUSE amino acids have THREE bases in the code. I just think I see how a memeist might using Dawkins' DEVIL's CHAPLIN, gain say Gould's death (and gap in communication between Gould and Dawkins) (in)to a social advantage, skipping a generation, that thus might constrict biology FURTHER (than a simple outworking of the inbreeding could explain on condition if one were forced scientifically to deal with variance less plurivocally than I think I read him to have said). I'll drop this. Thanks again. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-16-2005 08:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I gotta ask what you see in US stuff that is better than his book? Oh I didn't mean to suggest that, and I should say my comment to you was supposed to be tongue in cheek. I viewed it as the same old same old. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It turns out the Dutch Minister of Education recently stated that evolution is an incomplete theory and that there needs to be a debate regarding its stature, suggesting that Intelligent Design theory is an equal replacement theory. She also lamented the divide between religion and science (which is interesting since if she actually knew what ID was then she should not be admitting that intention so publicly).
So it appears that the IDists are beginning to decloak in the Netherlands and get the wedge strategy working. Unlike the US program, the Dutch offensive appears to be backfiring. Almost everyone, including her own Xian party members, have responded negatively, stating politicians should stay out of science completely, and to leave it up to scientists to work such things out. They said there isn't really an interest, much less a need, for debate on that topic. Ahhhhhhhhh... the netherlands stays on track for now. This message has been edited by holmes, 05-23-2005 11:57 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) |
|||||||||||||||||||
ProfessorR Inactive Member |
Greetings all,
I am Ukrainian currently living in the US. As I wrote in the "Is Creationism a Predominantly US..." thread, there are no Ukrainian creationists, at least among educated people. However, recently, two links were posted on a Ukrainian Web forum called "Maidan," referring to Ukrainian creationists. Here are these links (in Ukrainian, the text is in Cyrillic): http://www.cris-evol.comhttp://nt-creaz.nm.ru/zvern-fulltext.htm The first link is to a book, written, apparently, by a person with some education in biology, but with many references predominantly to US creationists. The second link is to a text of a letter, written by several Ukrainian scientists (some biologists, some non-biologists) and school teachers, addressed to the President of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, with a petition to do something about "amending" biology textbooks currently adopted in Ukraine. It struck me that among those things that the authors of the letter want to be "amended," there is some usual creationist nonsense about archeopterix being fully bird, etc. Richard
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ProfessorR Inactive Member |
The second link is to a letter addressed, actually, to the Prime Minister of Ukraine, c/c'ed to the Minister of Education (not to the Pres. of the Natl. Acad. Sci.). Sorry for the inaccuracy. --R.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I just had a major shock. When the MP wanted to introduce ID to debate I thought that was to be a wedge to get it into dutch schools. I was mistaken.
Today I learned that in fact, it IS CUMPULSORY TO LEARN CREATIONISM AS AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY TO EVOLUTION in Dutch schools. Holy Katzenjammers! That's right, Creationism is mandated by law here as a valid alternative in Biology. Interestingly enough, the MPs attempt to get ID into debate has, as some ministers have put it, "woken a sleeping dog". Now MPs are beginning discussions to remove Creationism and teach only evolution. Me and my gf found this very shocking, and strange as she has no memory of ever learning Creationism in her biology class. But anyway, I guess Holland is a picture of what the US could be if Creationists had their way... still most people believe in evolution. Their National Institute of Biology is backing the move to drop Creationism, and not interested in pursuing ID either. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GVGS58 Junior Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
Long time lurker here, not much posting here, but as I'm from Holland I might shed some additional light here.
Creationism was to me taught as spontanous generation: an outdated theory. I realize Creationism can be taught differently in other schools, but the textbook I had treated it not seriously, and I never heard an outcry of Christians. Just because it's in the law to teach Creationism doesn't mean it's treated very seriously. That's not to say Creationsim is non-existent in Holland (I've met a few of them personally, fellow students at a Biology University), but I don't consider it a pressure group. The 'debate' the minister wanted seems to have changed to a general debate concerning the place of science in society. While I very well can imagine this debate can turn bad, it might also turn good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
The 'debate' the minister wanted seems to have changed to a general debate concerning the place of science in society. While I very well can imagine this debate can turn bad, it might also turn good. Yes, I was glad about the reaction her statements got and while I am still disturbed to find out Creationism is legally mandated, I am also glad to see that MPs are interested in removing that anchronism. Do you know much about that legislation? When it came about and why it can be taught differently between schools? My gf says the only thing she was taught was that it used to be believed in until evidence accumulated which made evolution the best scientific theory. Thus it was mentioned only as a negative in her school. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GVGS58 Junior Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
I don't know how or when this legislation came about. All I know is that at my school (Catholic school) it was taught the same way as your gf had experienced: as historical interest, but scientifically bankrupt. There was not much more than a few lines spent on it.
I guess that with a legislation like 'Teach Creationism', it's not mentioned in what way it should be taught. Since Holland is not a very fundamentalist country, this meant in most cases 'in a historical context'. I think the legislation is mostly an anachronism indeed, and may be gone soon.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024