It seems that much as The Green Man is trying to ignore, and accordingly not comment on, Intelligent Design (ID). It will just not go away as an issue. As previously stated The Green Man has no problem with ID as religious doctrine, you are free to believe what you wish. You can believe a giant benevolent turkey rules over us all and determines our fate if you wish but don't try and argue that it should be taught in a science class. Similarly, ID, whilst perfectly satisfactory as belief system, is just not science.
Science aspires to detached objectiveness that is not tainted by religion. It may not completely succeed but it has done reasonably well and because of this we benefit from technology, engineering and medicine. It is the scientific basis of medicine that makes it so successful and of all ministers of the federal government Dr Brendan Nelson should be one of the most intimately acquainted with this fact. Accordingly it is with utter disbelief that I read in OnLineOpinion the following
While commentators noted that Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) had met with Brendan Nelson and other politicians, and that following those meetings and his support, it would begin distributing thousands of ID DVDs into schools, little information was given about CCC
Not heard of the CCC before? Neither had The Green Man but they are no tinpot organisation. They are an arm of the extreme fundamentalist right in the US and according to money magazine "the largest evangelical organisation in the USA"; "the richest fundamentalist enterprise in the world".
This is an organisation that actively promotes "family values". Family values such as "vision of family which sees men in control and women submissive".
That removes freedoms such as the banning of abortions and of homosexuality. Who have a vision for the US and Australia which is, in essence, a new Dark Ages. This is the organisation that Brendon Nelson, a man of science, is getting into bed with.
There are many jewels hidden amongst the leaves in this forgotten part of the ancient forest. Spend some time browsing and you are sure to find some. Click here or continue your search below
or read the most recent entries here.Intelligent Design, once called Creation Science, seems to thrive in that particular cultural sphere of fundamentalist bible-believing christians in certains parts of the USA, where it is part of a powerful political force. Though there are elements of it here in Australia, our more skeptical and apathetic approach to matters of faith probably means it will never take off here in spite of the mis-guided efforst of Dr Brendan Nelson and others (it would get laughed out of schools).
Wow, you sure attract a lot of comments. Where's all the action, man?
Posted by: Bluey at January 8, 2006 04:25 PMI like the idea of the Turkey, can it be a franchise...?
Posted by: Terry at January 17, 2006 11:02 PMIntelligent Design was never creation science. It's not a scientific discipline either but nor is Darwinism. So, what is Darwinism doing in science class? It's a theory and it can't be falsified so it's not truly scientific.
In fact, Darwinism is better suited to philosophy even if only because of all the lousy philosophical and political movements it spawned from Marxism to eugenics to Nazism. It doesn't have a pretty history.
Coming down on intelligent design because it might lead someone to a religious belief is just like me coming down on Darwinism because it might lead someone to Marxism.
ID is not religious in itself - it has its modern origins in observations made by scientists, particularly in the field of bio-chemistry.
It should stand or fall on its own merits, not because people like the Green Man hate the fact that it can be used by silly American creationists.
Theistic evolution, accepted widely and not subject to the same criticisms as ID is in reality a form of ID anyway.
One of ID's leading scientific critics, Ken Miller, is a theistic evolutionist.
Green Man, you are far too simplistic. You lack any comprehensive understanding of most of the topics you write about.
Posted by: Lou at January 31, 2006 12:03 PMLou, exactly which topics are you claiming the Greenman does have a comprehensive understanding of?
Posted by: blackdog at February 1, 2006 06:33 AMObviously you lack understanding of the concept behind ID, which as I pointed out is scarcely any different to theistic evolution. In the absence of any comments to the contrary I have to assume that you find TE acceptable.
You also know nothing about alpine ecology or alpine grazing yet you make statements alleging damage you've never seen.
Judging by your misquoting of the MCAV's Simon Turner you know nothing about ethics either.
There are three specific examples to start with.
Why do you refer to yourself in the the third person? Are you eccentric as well as ignorant?
Posted by: Lou at February 1, 2006 03:02 PMThe Greenman may be eccentric, and he may be ignorant. But you, Lou, are cantankerous.
It's all really very sad.
Posted by: blackdog at February 1, 2006 03:17 PMhmmm eccentric is such an attractive epaulette, The Green Man will wear it with pride.
Posted by: Greenman at February 1, 2006 03:35 PMCantakerous? lol
But even if t'were true I am not unethical and ignorant. I do not put into the mouths of decent people words which they have never spoken. The Green Man does.
I don't espouse knowledge of subjects I know naught about. The Green Man does.
Meanwhile, to quote a song a song of which the Green Man is very fond, "heave away, haul away" to your heart's content.
In the Green Man's world there must be great pleasure in solitude.
Posted by: Lou at February 2, 2006 07:03 AM"Judging by your misquoting of the MCAV's Simon Turner you know nothing about ethics either."
I searched for this quote on the Greenman's site and noted that the Greenman had acknowledged that it was a modified form of what Simon Turner had said. How did I find this? Two reasons: the quote just sounded satirical and next to it was a little asterix pointing to a disclaimer noting the modification.
I don't understand all the fuss about a litte humoresque.
Additionally, the site is obviously a mix of opinion and factual material sometimes presented in mocking style. A further disclaimer on the main page of Greenman's site says:
"The Green Man is usually fictional, inconsistent and fallacious however he does tend to drift into accuracy from time to time. Such is the nature of the Green Man. In fact he is not above the complete truth when the fancy takes him."
Louise, can I suggest some reading in Darwinian evolutionary science. As an entertaining read you might like "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins or perhaps his more recent work "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design".
If you are interested in something more substantial then I recommend "The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change" by Richard Lewontin. It explains the science the underlies the theory.
Posted by: Greenman at February 2, 2006 02:25 PMI've read Dawkins, thanks, and remain unimpressed.
Nevertheless, as I said I don't believe in Biblical creationism either. Nor do I necessarily believe in in ID but it does have a role to play in questioning aspects of evolutionary theory and I see no harm in searching for evidence of design in origin science. Even Dawkins admits an appearance of design, although he also dismisses it as an illusion.
I see you haven't addressed my point that theistic evolution is essentially a form of ID. Yet this is something that was believed by Einstein, Mendel, Georges Le Maitre (postulator of the Big Bang) Jerome Le Jeune and others as well as by many living critics of ID.
Evolution as a theory has a lot of holes, as you should know, not least the fossil record as evidenced by the Cambrian explosion.
There's no real reason to believe it won't be able to explain these holes at some time in the future, but nor is there any compelling reason to believe that it will.
Finally, placing an asterisk after the misquote of Simon Turner does not excuse it. A lot of readers would have missed it, probably most. It was a cheap shot.
You don't seem to care that people's lives have been affected and in some cases their livelihoods removed with no time for them to prepare.
We were burned out three years ago, lost two thirds of our cattle and now we're faced with this. Do you think the State Government gave us any assistance for the damage their fire caused? They gave us nothing and wanted us to replace burned fencing at a cost that was totally prohibitive.
You need to acquaint yourself with both sides of the story and stop being so disingenuous. There is NO environmental reason in terms of damage to end alpine grazing.
You along with others resent the fact that we are allowed to graze on public land. You also object to grazing in a national park. Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But tell the truth.
Don't keep lying and offering these specious environmental arguments. Honestly, you're engaging someone who knows the country intimately, and someone whom you should have figured by now is no dummy.
It's possible to have dialogue with a reasonable person but not with an idealogue. You likened the dispossession of the cattlemen with that of the indigenous users. You might like to know that we ride the country with several indigenous people who love our lifestyle and would jump at the chance to be involved in alpine grazing.
Posted by: Lou at February 3, 2006 05:35 PMSo you were using public land to conduct a private business. Other farmers buy their own land, many going into tremendous debt to do so.
Did you share a portion of your profits with the public for use of their land? Everyone pays taxes so that doesn't count.
You are nothing but a communist parasite.
Stumble It!