bleh ...Proffesor Roberts has never done it for me - i find her approach trivial, pandering, and focused on rateings.
I think this self important and philosphicaly weak 'campaign' is a bit pathetic, but mostly totally irrelevent:
like this: http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-lead...should-ban
and this : http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/philip-m...90659.html
yes: i know you all love the twater-feeds and the face-punches > fankly these kinds of mass-media-insta-iculture-crapitudes are a greater 'threat' to society than, for example, the ridicuoulsly small number of classes in which creationism might be taught as a 'doctrine'
what exactly is 'Creationism' anyway?
as portrayed by Roberts, it seems all about whether God interveened to physically create modern humans - or even straight denial of evolutionary processes, or at least as applied to humans. Biblical Literalism is strictly speaking another matter entirley - probably very many self-identifying creationist are explicity stating that they are not biblical literalists.....
But does even Lieralism really matter? - Some people believe that money is the root of all social productivity - i know which concerns me more....
If whether humans are descended from apes or not is all we are talking about then also 'teach' about other Humans beliefs in Aliens, Niburu/Nephilim, von danikien etc - dont try to push science by restricting choice, open up all possibilities, and the evidence WILL speak for itself (have faith Prof!)
But (in a Legal sense) there really is no single thing called Creationism - no church of Creationism - no box to tick on HR and census forms...etc
at the most pc-liberal-educated end it is surley a belief that 'something' beyond human understanding was implicated in the fundemental origins of existence (as we experinece it anyway...)
For many educated scientists self-identifying as creationist, it seems to be more about semantics, and a frustration with other scientists who are too smug in their Post-Enlightenment Moral Objectivity.
For example, "yes, God personally interveened to create modern human beings (because God is personal to everything and in all creation)"
This is not nessescarily all Flat-Earth territory, -rather an attempt (by Christians) to intergrate thier rather outdated 'creation myths' with current areas of knowledge (and, of course, uncertainty).
Islam (for example) copes better with this particular philosphical issue - Allah is by definition beyond human understanding or perception... (although some Muslims do seem to struggle with the actual scientists, particualrly in relatrion to the study of pre-Islamic history....)
Much older verses that have come to us via ancient Sanskrit really do seem to cope rather well with quantum physics, cosmology, and scientific indeterminacey. More importantly they speak very clearly about the limits of knowledge, and how a human can still function in such a vast and unknowable universe.
I dont care if somebody else believes in man-monkeys, monkey-men, or angles - only what they do in life.
If we are to suggest that a 'belief' in any of these forms of creationism (or other forms of 'ignoring science facts') has a materailly negative impact on an individual or a society, then we are damned if we dont very carefuly consider whether 'science facts' do in fact have any lasting authority, and, in reality whether objectivity actually does-what-it-says-on-the-tin.
If evidence to support evolution is ignored, perhapes it has not been well enough argued - or are we to suspect the corruption of young minds with sinster 'creationist - cells'? If so, shall we drive them deeper underground?
Is this really a matter for the Law?
The whole thing is awfully 2faced-Blairite-OpusDiei, don't you think? (ie says one - does the other)
Who benifits?
Banning 'creationism' might just be more about cementing a 'mainstream' christian' view than at first appears...
It certainly softly-shouts that 'Scientists Are Right&Moral', and we should Believe them...........
:face-thinks:hmmm...i dont think it takes very long to realise that applied 'science', technology, and its Masters have wreaked far greater havoc on humanity and the world, than ever the individuals belief in a divine spark of creation, or that they were not realted to apes, or even teaching about creationism in modern schools, could...
It really is not the creation myths of people who call themselves (for example) Christians that disturbs me, but rather what they choose and permit in those particular lives.
Such choices are informed by philospical outlook, and are (today) ransacked and subverted by innumerable vested interests, money-grabbers etc > all pumped straight into our i-eyes and our i-magination <
Shall we ban everything that does not worship the Often-false God of Institutional Science?
i dont think so...
I think the solution is far easier:
ban all teaching of ALL science, anthropology(inc. religion) and literature ; make all classes Applied Philosphy (via human discourse), and, only until its basics are mastered, can the student progress to deal with more trivial epistomological and ontological details of the existence and the world.....
For example, the exact correct terminology and the absolute precise names to describe something as mind-bogglingly abstract (and, for the scientist, so instramentaly number-dependent) as the Creation of Existence Itself.
.
[ @Prof R- get a Proper Job !, or at least do the decent thing, and stick to areas that you might actually have academic credentials in! ]
ps [one word to a Physical Anthropologist : Repatriation...if you know your subject, i think you'll get my drift]
I think this self important and philosphicaly weak 'campaign' is a bit pathetic, but mostly totally irrelevent:
like this: http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-lead...should-ban
and this : http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/philip-m...90659.html
yes: i know you all love the twater-feeds and the face-punches > fankly these kinds of mass-media-insta-iculture-crapitudes are a greater 'threat' to society than, for example, the ridicuoulsly small number of classes in which creationism might be taught as a 'doctrine'
what exactly is 'Creationism' anyway?
as portrayed by Roberts, it seems all about whether God interveened to physically create modern humans - or even straight denial of evolutionary processes, or at least as applied to humans. Biblical Literalism is strictly speaking another matter entirley - probably very many self-identifying creationist are explicity stating that they are not biblical literalists.....
But does even Lieralism really matter? - Some people believe that money is the root of all social productivity - i know which concerns me more....
If whether humans are descended from apes or not is all we are talking about then also 'teach' about other Humans beliefs in Aliens, Niburu/Nephilim, von danikien etc - dont try to push science by restricting choice, open up all possibilities, and the evidence WILL speak for itself (have faith Prof!)
But (in a Legal sense) there really is no single thing called Creationism - no church of Creationism - no box to tick on HR and census forms...etc
at the most pc-liberal-educated end it is surley a belief that 'something' beyond human understanding was implicated in the fundemental origins of existence (as we experinece it anyway...)
For many educated scientists self-identifying as creationist, it seems to be more about semantics, and a frustration with other scientists who are too smug in their Post-Enlightenment Moral Objectivity.
For example, "yes, God personally interveened to create modern human beings (because God is personal to everything and in all creation)"
This is not nessescarily all Flat-Earth territory, -rather an attempt (by Christians) to intergrate thier rather outdated 'creation myths' with current areas of knowledge (and, of course, uncertainty).
Islam (for example) copes better with this particular philosphical issue - Allah is by definition beyond human understanding or perception... (although some Muslims do seem to struggle with the actual scientists, particualrly in relatrion to the study of pre-Islamic history....)
Much older verses that have come to us via ancient Sanskrit really do seem to cope rather well with quantum physics, cosmology, and scientific indeterminacey. More importantly they speak very clearly about the limits of knowledge, and how a human can still function in such a vast and unknowable universe.
I dont care if somebody else believes in man-monkeys, monkey-men, or angles - only what they do in life.
If we are to suggest that a 'belief' in any of these forms of creationism (or other forms of 'ignoring science facts') has a materailly negative impact on an individual or a society, then we are damned if we dont very carefuly consider whether 'science facts' do in fact have any lasting authority, and, in reality whether objectivity actually does-what-it-says-on-the-tin.
If evidence to support evolution is ignored, perhapes it has not been well enough argued - or are we to suspect the corruption of young minds with sinster 'creationist - cells'? If so, shall we drive them deeper underground?
Is this really a matter for the Law?
The whole thing is awfully 2faced-Blairite-OpusDiei, don't you think? (ie says one - does the other)
Who benifits?
Banning 'creationism' might just be more about cementing a 'mainstream' christian' view than at first appears...
It certainly softly-shouts that 'Scientists Are Right&Moral', and we should Believe them...........
:face-thinks:hmmm...i dont think it takes very long to realise that applied 'science', technology, and its Masters have wreaked far greater havoc on humanity and the world, than ever the individuals belief in a divine spark of creation, or that they were not realted to apes, or even teaching about creationism in modern schools, could...
It really is not the creation myths of people who call themselves (for example) Christians that disturbs me, but rather what they choose and permit in those particular lives.
Such choices are informed by philospical outlook, and are (today) ransacked and subverted by innumerable vested interests, money-grabbers etc > all pumped straight into our i-eyes and our i-magination <
Shall we ban everything that does not worship the Often-false God of Institutional Science?
i dont think so...
I think the solution is far easier:
ban all teaching of ALL science, anthropology(inc. religion) and literature ; make all classes Applied Philosphy (via human discourse), and, only until its basics are mastered, can the student progress to deal with more trivial epistomological and ontological details of the existence and the world.....
For example, the exact correct terminology and the absolute precise names to describe something as mind-bogglingly abstract (and, for the scientist, so instramentaly number-dependent) as the Creation of Existence Itself.
.
[ @Prof R- get a Proper Job !, or at least do the decent thing, and stick to areas that you might actually have academic credentials in! ]
ps [one word to a Physical Anthropologist : Repatriation...if you know your subject, i think you'll get my drift]