Posted on 11/06/2005 6:26:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
Readable, nevertheless. Thank you.
I used OmniPage OCR reader.
He is never pictured. This is all the world has ever seen of him: The Grand Master, at a disciplinary session. It was when RadioAstronomer's petition to be relieved of janitorial duty was being considered.
On a good scan of a printed document, OmniPage is nearly 100 percent accurate. Tell me if you spot any errors.
I would have done this earlier today, but My OCR reader is installed on what is now my wife's computer, and it was busy today.
I just glanced through it, having already read the pdf file. It looks okay to my hurried reading.
Is he praying? I notice you don't show the cables linked to the 6502.
Yes. You should have been there in the Manville Movies when Yvette Mimieux first told Rod Taylor her name in George Pal's film version. The place erupted in pre-adolescent dirty laughter.
In this dover case, it's really too bad these bozos tried this stunt, because I think it will harm the traditional Christian culture that (although I don't have faith in the religion) I do think is a positive culture to operate a country on.
I've seen stories where entire school systems have ended all religious holidays, have banned green and red colors at the "winter break" parties, and other obvious anti-Christian rules. It's pretty sad.
But these Dover guys, because they so obviously, and so fraudulently tried to institute actual religious faith in science class, have handed ammunition to the folks who want to erase Christianity completely.
I noticed that 50/50 is rendered 50I50.
I understand your frustrations, gentlemen, since I am sure all of you have repeatedly dealt with many who disagree with you and who will not be dissuaded of their positions. I do you an injustice, since my approach, fueled by coffee and a beautiful Fall morning, was not scholarly but jocular. When encountering those whose approach to evolution is purely materialistic, and I think many who are most vocal about the theory are indeed adamant materialists, one makes assumptions that may not be valid.
I assumed that you all are materialists. Forgive me.
When Darwin published Origin of the Species, his theory removed from many great minds a necessity for God in the cosmos, unleashing a cynical reassessment of metaphysics that resulted, I think, in the disasters of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, contemporary liberalism, etc., etc. ad nauseum. While the USSR officially embraced Lysenko instead of Darwin, resulting in wheat crop failures and other human tragedies, the concept was the same: without a divine hand to guide the species, origins of life itself became philosophically divorced from God and were consolidated into the concept of evolution.
Like it or not, that is where the academy took the theory. Implicit to TOE is the "science" of denial of design. Teaching TOE as the only truth teaches implicitly, for many, secular materialism as the only truth (in the USSR, of course, Lysenkoism somehow more closely united the "scientific" principles of dialectical materialism with biology and genetics, which fascinates me and mystifies me). To say I do not understand the definition of "theory", so I therefore cannot critique TOE, or that I keep trying to link TOE to origins of life, which TOE indeed does not do, is to misunderstand my assertions. But that is my fault, due to time limits (note my late response to all your posts) and haste. I apologize for wasting your time.
What I believe ID proponents desire is to be able at least to express their disagreement with the implicit, exclusionary materialism of TOE. Without an ability to do so, TOE exclusivists, if I may coin a term of classification that I know will not fit adequately, become like Lysenko's political allies. To impose what Lysenko adamantly believed to be the only truth, they suppressed Darwinism. And they did more, with the aid of Stalin, persecuting, prosecuting, and in some instances, murdering, his Darwinist critics. I do not suggest anti-ID critics will do that, of course. But the insults and condescension most academics level at ID proponents suggest an unwillingness to allow freedom of speech in the academy, as if competing ideas are a bad thing. For example, I am not really an ID proponent, and I have collected my share of insults for the week. Oh well, humility is a fine virtue!
That's all. Good luck to you all in your efforts. Regards.
If you want to discard a scientific theory because someone might misapply it, you'd better discard all of science. You'd better discard all of religion, too, because that's been put to some pretty revolting uses.
Like it or not, that is where the academy took the theory. Implicit to TOE is the "science" of denial of design.
No more than any other sceintific theory denies design.
Teaching TOE as the only truth teaches implicitly, for many, secular materialism as the only truth (in the USSR, of course, Lysenkoism somehow more closely united the "scientific" principles of dialectical materialism with biology and genetics, which fascinates me and mystifies me).
The TOE is taught as science, not "the only truth." Trying to smuggle religion class into science class is what the argument is about.
To say I do not understand the definition of "theory", so I therefore cannot critique TOE, or that I keep trying to link TOE to origins of life, which TOE indeed does not do, is to misunderstand my assertions. But that is my fault, due to time limits (note my late response to all your posts) and haste. I apologize for wasting your time.
All we know of your opinions is what you post here.
What I believe ID proponents desire is to be able at least to express their disagreement with the implicit, exclusionary materialism of TOE. Without an ability to do so, TOE exclusivists, if I may coin a term of classification that I know will not fit adequately, become like Lysenko's political allies. To impose what Lysenko adamantly believed to be the only truth, they suppressed Darwinism. And they did more, with the aid of Stalin, persecuting, prosecuting, and in some instances, murdering, his Darwinist critics. I do not suggest anti-ID critics will do that, of course. But the insults and condescension most academics level at ID proponents suggest an unwillingness to allow freedom of speech in the academy, as if competing ideas are a bad thing. For example, I am not really an ID proponent, and I have collected my share of insults for the week. Oh well, humility is a fine virtue!
The fuss is about a group of people who want to inject the supernatural into science. If you think that will make for better or even good science, you don't understand science. Or maybe we're all wrong. Explain to us how ID is science ... without first demanding that science change its definition so that ID can be part of it.
That's all. Good luck to you all in your efforts. Regards.
Cheers.
One of the things I want to quote was this:
...in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration. William Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution, A Reply to Henry Morris." P-386. (Forrest, Oct. 5, PM, 50:17-22, 51:3-7).
I think it is very generous of Dembski to have admitted what the ID movement is really all about.... which is exactly what we've suspected all along.
These ignorant, self-appointed crusaders against science are doing more damage than they can possibly understand. But the real villains are those who push this poison, and who know exactly what they're doing.
Hazards of OCR software and blurry characters.
Still a great job. You must type like well, you know.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I've got to talk to him about hygiene.
Oh, I wasn't following along. I almost suggested this but then again
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
