Posted on 08/11/2005 8:28:30 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Nelson brings intelligent design debate to Australia
August 10, 2005 - 7:47PM
Education Minister Brendan Nelson supports the teaching of a controversial new theory of creationism, but only if it is balanced by the instruction of established science.
President George Bush has started a debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in school by suggesting a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.
It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.
Dr Nelson said he had met the proponents of intelligent design, in addition to watching a DVD on the subject.
"Do I think it should be a replacement for teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense? I most certainly don't think that it should be," he told the National Press Club in Canberra.
"In fact I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it.
"Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes. I think that's fine."
Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.
Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.
AAP
It's the "not science" part that gets them in trouble.
Asking for a definition is not a scientific question in itself, no. It could be part of the endeavor, however. You need definitions and to understand when a definition may be tripping you up.
We really don't know what to do with viruses, for instance, if we apply definitions of "life" that include functions beyond self-replication. However, the history of viruses is somehow interwined with the history of life in some way we don't yet understand.
One clue: I can produce similar text with a bit too much alcohol in my system.
on viruses: I suspect that they are us.
so to speak.
I suspect that they are fragmentary bits of code which have managed to escape from eukaryotic cells of more complex organisms.
What you've stated is the most popular view of the origin of viruses but there is at least one other interesting idea. Cellular life may have arisen as "parasites" upon something called RNA-world, a whole ecosystem acting as one big organism. Viruses might be the remnants of the RNA-world "host," now parasitizing the former cellular parasites.
Jeepers, VR, I'd love to see you try!!! May I suggest 2-3 shots of Jack Daniels just to grease the wheels, and then have a go at it??? :^)
Then if you feel like it, we can discuss. :^)
Thanks for writing, VR!
entirely possible, and fits in with my suspicion that common descent from ONE common cellular organism might be erroneous.
and, of course, it may be both
some viruses might be remnants of RNA World
other viruses might be escapees from cellular DNA/RNA
Life lives at the frontier between the realms of Finite Existence and Infinity.
Mostly true, but there is a thin red line between Finite Existence, Finite Nonexistence, Infinity, and Just-Really-Really-Super-Bigness. More importantly, there are no guard posts at the frontier, as smuggling has not be defined in this context.
Non-Existence is filled with all potential possibilities, and all potential possibilities at all levels of existence form together an infinite realm that is called Infinity.
We must note, however, that while some possibilities are potential, some are only potentially potential. Some others could eventually with a few steroid shots and some dietary supplements someday become potentially potential possibilities.
Infinity is the infinite chain of all potential possibilities in their chain reactions driven by a creative agent.
Chain reactions are cool and creative agents can "cause" them in a way, but creative agents just set up initial conditions. Mostly, we refine the U-235 and blast subcritical masses together in just the right way.
It must also be noted that Infinity can contain real possibilities which jostle the potential possibilities and the merely potentially potential possibilities all over the place. Hiding in all this somewhere are my missing socks.
At each link in this chain a generative agent recreates the potential possibilities towards a complete coverage of all possible possibilities, driving them towards infinite fertility.
I was going to talk about the chain. I also seem to have left out the possible possibilities versus the potential and potentially potential ones. Hmmm.
I've been doing this sober up to now but I'm going for the wine even as I type. OK, not as I type, but I'm about to get up.
In comparison, Existence is but a small morsel, a string of beads on the thread of Infinity.
Existence is finite. Finite is pretty drab stuff. Finite is being promised the Super Bowl and getting your neighbor's kid's Peewee League game. Existence has its limits, at least so far. Existence takes time, and who has time for that?
The realm of the Finite cannot exist without the realm of Infinity, since the Finite can change only by its connection with Infinity, and it can maintain itself only by continuously changing.
I didn't want to get into change here. I never have enough change.
The Finite is a subset of Infinity, specifically a finite subset. I have to differ with Grandpierre (Big Rock?) on the mutability of sets, as I think the smaller the set the smaller the restance to change. Less mass, as it were. I would not expect Infinity can change at all, so attachment to Infinity can only slow you down unless it's an Infiniti.
Now you've DONE it! The ultimate convergent evolution.
just doing my part
rofl
The stuff they give you these days, you don't remember ANYTHING. I guess that's progress.
Memory blockers are pretty standard. I had ether straight up, the kind they drip on a mask over your face. They have to limit the amount, or you stop breathing. The effect from my point of view was far more interesting than any descriptions of drug experiences I've heard.
I had the distinct impression of being above and outside of everything. I have never had the urge to repeat the experience.
I reject it because it is scientifically unsound, relying on a plethora of assumptions and dubious "testimony" which seem rather easily imploded through rational analysis of the actual evidence.
That too. If there were something about NDE that wasn't similar to drug or oxygen deprivation induced hallucinations, I would be interested.
What I see are a bunch of hucksters fleecing the uninformed of their money.
Yeah, but your gall bladder has very clear memories of an out-of-body experience. As for me, I'm no fun. All my memories are of in-body stuff.
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.