Barbara Forrest, the official historian for the anti-ID side, has a piece of
revisionisthistory in the latest Skeptical Inquirer (see here). It is titled ‘The Vise Strategy Undone.’ Since I’m the inventor of the Vise Strategy and one of the principal targets of her piece, let me offer a few corrections…: (stikes and emphasis by Oldcola) In general, this is William Dambski speaking
Archive for décembre 2006
The Ezekiel Code with DNA Molecule: Fifteen Similarities – The Brights’ Movement Forums: « A 2500-year old enigma (Bible, Ezeliel1:4 to 3:6, consecutive 1000-word paragraphs), we first call it as %u201CEzekiel Code%u201D, recorded a mysterious thing in a %u201Cmirage%u201D: the %u201Cfour living creatures%u201D were imagining an image of human in a %u201Cwhirlwind%u201D. Exegetes tried to explain what it was in that vision, but all was so difficult. We compared the Ezekiel Code with the molecular biological discoveries (DNA structure and functions) and gained the surprising results: both of %u201CEzekiel Code%u201D and biological scientists described the same event, human DNA is right-handed double helical molecule that composed by four kinds of nucleotides encoding the human biological body, even though they had different %u201Ccivilization%u201D and used different %u201Cterminological words%u201D. This study verified the concordance of Ezekiel Code with DNA from its major figure, characters to details: fifteen similarities. »
Obviously, you have to read that ! I wonder what kind of medicine those guys use.
Utilisée pour protéger et purifier les personnes, les lieux ou les objets, elle présente également la capacité de repousser les esprits ou entités néfastes. On l’utilisera également dans de nombreux rituels de purification ou de désenvoutement, afin d’accentuer l’efficacité de ceux-ci. »
A small group of Wikipedia admins with a grudge against ID have been running amok with no oversight performing and/or allowing hatchet jobs on ID and its leaders. It’s long past time to expose what they’ve been doing. Wikipedia is far too popular and reliable source of information, especially for school children, to let this travesty of justice continue. (emphasis mine)
Another symptom of IDioty? Considering Wikipedia as a reliable source of information?. Popular and democratic maybe, and that’s the problem with DaveScot, he doesn’t support « collective voice » in a space where moderation isn’t equal to IDiots dictatorship.
Once more, whining Dave, once more low depth.
Now, it’s unclear to me why the ID guys, who are mostly hard math and science types, should even want to hang out with these children of a lesser god. But my friend insisted on hearing the view from O’Leary’s Point, so here goes. (emphasis mine)
Hey, that’s news, ID guys as hard math and science types! Denyse is neither, but if she believe that IDiots are science types then we have a starting point to explain why she is pro-ID. Denyse, there is evidence against this particular belief of yours.
Beyond that, all I really want to say nowadays is that the universe is either top down or bottom up. That is, either mind comes first and creates matter or matter comes first and creates mind. The evidence for bottom up is actually quite poor but Darwinism (from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps) is the bottom-up creation story. Thus, getting Darwinism inserted in the school system, funded by the tax money of those who oppose it, is an enormous triumph for the materialist – especially when the genuine evidence base is so slender.(emphasis mine)
The evidence for bottom up isn’t poor, but let’s consider that this is the case for a moment. One have to compare with the alternatives, that is the top down, for which there is no evidence at all. That make bottom up infinitely more supported then top down, thus the better to teach to freshman.
It is a small step between calling any kind of creationist education “cultural deprivation” and “cultural impoverishment” to calling it “child abuse” as Richard Dawkins maintains.
OK then, let’s make a small step: creationist education is cultural deprivation and impoverishment and should be considered as child abuse, by law, and punished.
And let’s take another small step: if at philosophy classes the controversy is presented as an alternative to materialism why not present materialism as a controversy in religious gatherings? That should be.