Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Heselbine: quote: Originally posted by RedJooles:
Let me read a little bit more - but he does devote the whole of chapter 2 to "Good Design"!!
And in the second sentence he says this: "...the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." The rest of the chapter is about how evolutionariy processes give the appearance of design. The appearance of...the illusion of...you getting it yet?
Ah, so just because we 'observe' something that has the appearnace of, and has all the hallmarks of design - that makes it an illusion. So if something is mathematically virtually impossible and is non-observable, this makes it a fact... I see it all now (Mr Burns voice)! Yep, I think I'm getting the basic drift!! Talking about illusionists - that Dr Stewart, is very good in front of the camera - 'millions of years ago', 'the most devastating affect on our planet', 'causing a massive leap in our planets evolution, from single celled stromatolites that dominated our planet for 2 billion years...' with stunning backdrops - beautiful musical crescendo's... could almost have shared equal billing with Houdini, in the mid-Victorian stage halls of London!! I am loving the show though - stunning!! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker: quote: Originally posted by RedJooles:
Is homosexuality genetic, or isn't it? Your thoughts?
I think it is unlikely to be genetic (i.e. due to a particular single gene), it is possible it is congenital and highly likely to be environmental in cases.
Hummm, tell me a little more free_thinker - do you have any web-links to any articles on this? I am genuinely curious! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Heselbine: quote: Originally posted by RedJooles:...the curriculum will be taught, how it is directed from the governing bodies!
Yes - or you should be sacked. This is not something to crow about. It's the responsibility of a teacher.
Just as a teacher, who may be an atheist, can teach religious education - they do so professionally and keeping their own views to themselves - just as I intend to do with evolution. But I have to come somewhere to voice my concerns - here, with you lot!!! Sorry!!  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles: Just as a teacher, who may be an atheist, can teach religious education - they do so professionally and keeping their own views to themselves - just as I intend to do with evolution. But I have to come somewhere to voice my concerns - here, with you lot!!! Sorry!!
You might hope that any teacher would keep there own views to themselves, but my daughters' RE teacher constantly refers to Christian teaching as 'what we believe'. Until I pointed it out, you completely misunderstood what 'fittest' meant in the context of ToE. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a question of understanding the teaching. You may disagree with it, but you have a duty to firstly know what you are talking about. You have neither acknowledged that you were wrong, nor thanked me for pointing out your error. Not exactly consistent with the professionalism you profess. [As a 'professional' teacher you really aught to know how to use apostrophes - here's a clue "crescendo's" doesn't need one] Answering your other question. I have no links to articles, you asked me what I thought, not what genetic studies have concluded. Could I suggest you look it up yourself if you are genuinely curious.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
[QUOTE]You might hope that any teacher would keep there own views to themselves, but my daughters' RE teacher constantly refers to Christian teaching as 'what we believe'.
[As a 'professional' teacher you really aught to know how to use apostrophes - here's a clue "crescendo's" doesn't need one]
.
What's that called, when someone takes the p1$$ out of someone's grammar or spelling, whilst making schoolboy mistakes in their own efforts?
What time is it, Mr Woolf?
Time to mend your ways, for the end is nigh.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
What's that called, when someone takes the p1$$ out of someone's grammar or spelling, whilst making schoolboy mistakes in their own efforts?
I dunno, let me look it up in my dictionary. Is it more than two syllables? I'm not taking this p1ss, I'm pointing out that someone who claims to be a 'professional' school teacher should have higher standards than have been demonstrated.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
Until I pointed it out, you completely misunderstood what 'fittest' meant in the context of ToE.
This is not a matter of opinion, it is a question of understanding the teaching. You may disagree with it, but you have a duty to firstly know what you are talking about.
You have neither acknowledged that you were wrong, nor thanked me for pointing out your error. Not exactly consistent with the professionalism you profess.[QUOTE]
Well you'll have to forgive me, I tend to separate 'survival of the fittest' from 'adaptation' (of a species, or individual animal)!
Perhaps it was my error to separate the two? My mistake - now I know!
[QUOTE] Answering your other question. I have no links to articles, you asked me what I thought, not what genetic studies have concluded. Could I suggest you look it up yourself if you are genuinely curious.
Ok, it was just a question - I just thought that you were basing your thoughts on scientific study? Just that I know someone who has very, very strong views on this one - that it is genetic! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker: quote: Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
What's that called, when someone takes the p1$$ out of someone's grammar or spelling, whilst making schoolboy mistakes in their own efforts?
I dunno, let me look it up in my dictionary. Is it more than two syllables? I'm not taking this p1ss, I'm pointing out that someone who claims to be a 'professional' school teacher should have higher standards than have been demonstrated.
Thanks for your support Woolfie - nice to know someone has got 'my back' around here!!  On this forum, I write for content and do not pay the necessary attention (which I know that I should) to punctuation - I just want to communicate what I am thinking and not treat it like an essay, or formal letter to a new employer! That said - your sentence above, should read as thus: "I do not know; let me look it up in my dictionary." (debatable - but you could put an ! at the end of this sentence) "Is it more than two syllables?" Having said that, I tend to focus on what people are saying here; rather than marking it like a piece of coursework!! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles:
That said - your sentence above, should read as thus:
"I do not know; let me look it up in my dictionary." (debatable - but you could put an ! at the end of this sentence) "Is it more than two syllables?"
Once again you are wrong. The deliberate use of slang was a stylistic choice used to convey an affectation of stupidity. As such it contributed to the message. Regularly using greengrocer's apostrophes just conveys ignorance.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
Once again you are wrong.
The deliberate use of slang was a stylistic choice used to convey an affectation of stupidity.
As such it contributed to the message.
Regularly using greengrocer's apostrophes just conveys ignorance.
Well I'm glad that we have cleared that one up! Still should've had a semi colon and possibly an exclamation mark in the first sentence! Now that we have clarified and confirmed that the stylistic choice of this forum is informal and relaxed (not an English essay waiting to be marked), perhaps we can get back to something a little more interesting? I consider the matter closed - let's move on shall we? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles: quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
Once again you are wrong.
The deliberate use of slang was a stylistic choice used to convey an affectation of stupidity.
As such it contributed to the message.
Regularly using greengrocer's apostrophes just conveys ignorance.
Well I'm glad that we have cleared that one up! Still should've had a semi colon and possibly an exclamation mark in the first sentence!
Sorry, can't resist. 'Semicolon' is either one word or hyphenated, not two words. quote: Now that we have clarified and confirmed that the stylistic choice of this forum is informal and relaxed (not an English essay waiting to be marked), perhaps we can get back to something a little more interesting? I consider the matter closed - let's move on shall we?
It was only because you were claiming to be a 'professional' teacher that I brought it up at all. Indeed, let's move on. Do you think it is OK for an RE teacher to describe Christianity as 'what we believe'? What about setting homework that requires a belief in a god?
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles: quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
Until I pointed it out, you completely misunderstood what 'fittest' meant in the context of ToE.
This is not a matter of opinion, it is a question of understanding the teaching. You may disagree with it, but you have a duty to firstly know what you are talking about.
You have neither acknowledged that you were wrong, nor thanked me for pointing out your error. Not exactly consistent with the professionalism you profess.[QUOTE]
Well you'll have to forgive me, I tend to separate 'survival of the fittest' from 'adaptation' (of a species, or individual animal)!
Perhaps it was my error to separate the two? My mistake - now I know!
[QUOTE] Answering your other question. I have no links to articles, you asked me what I thought, not what genetic studies have concluded. Could I suggest you look it up yourself if you are genuinely curious.
Ok, it was just a question - I just thought that you were basing your thoughts on scientific study? Just that I know someone who has very, very strong views on this one - that it is genetic!
One theory, and I'll try to find a link, is that the gene for homosexuality in men is also found in females. However in females it manifests itself as causing menstruation early, which has obvious advantages and hence why the gene is present in the population. |
| |
|
|
[QUOTE] Hi greenbelt,
I think you might be confusing several different things.
The original question was effectively how could morality have provided an initial survival advantage.
It did (as I explained), and gave us some ingredients we can use in other areas.
Another interesting topic is the evolution and effects of the feedback and interaction between extelligence and intelligence.
One of the effects of that feedback has been to take the ingredients of morality given to us biologically, and turned them into the moral models we have today.
Think of these three paragraphs as ingredients, chef and dinner, if you like.
Which one of these would you like to talk about? Which one of these do you think needs supernatural interference?
Rgds
Luis (who is enjoying the standards here in the last couple of days) [QUOTE]
Luis - I may be confusing several things but my suspicion is that the social Darwinists area as well !. I don't think wild dogs exhibit moral behaviour - they just follow "co-operative instincts". I have no problem with the evolutionary basis of instincts. Morality involves making a judgement between competing instincts which may be equally beneficial/deletarious to survival - it is a higher cognitive/emotional construct. Wild dogs will just follow the strongest instinct. Human beings may choose to deliberately go against the strongest instinct even if this is detrimental to their own survival. They may even do this to improve the survival of someone from a competing/enemy group !. Can you show me how this higher construct might be genetically selected for and also show where in history this kind of altruistic behaviour has, on a regular basis, enhanced the survival of societies ?.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles:
Just that I know someone who has very, very strong views on this one - that it is genetic!
I got too distracted nit-picking to ask this. What are 'very, very strong views'? Would this be something like views expressed loudly and repeatedly in the absence of any supporting evidence. Do you think that the ferocity with with views are expressed has any bearing on the validity of the argument.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
That should read: Do you think that the ferocity with which the views are expressed has any bearing on the validity of the argument.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
That should read:
Do you think that the ferocity with which the views are expressed has any bearing on the validity of the argument.
Don't worry free_thinker - I read for content and understanding, rather than grammar and spelling! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
What are 'very, very strong views'?
Would this be something like views expressed loudly and repeatedly in the absence of any supporting evidence.
Do you think that the ferocity with with views are expressed has any bearing on the validity of the argument.
Well she has the view that homosexuality is genetic and that "they were born that way" - she is a Christian and is very outspoken (we get on well - even though we've had our odd spat)! It's an issue that I struggle with (no, I'm not gay) - as they are a group who have been ostracised from main-stream Church - which I think is well out of order!! Just want to get a fuller understanding - is it genetic - is it circumstantial - due to abuse (in some cases) - etc etc! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
Do you think it is OK for an RE teacher to describe Christianity as 'what we believe'?
What about setting homework that requires a belief in a god?
No it is not - as with teaching on any faith: "this is what they believe"! This is the way I teach on Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism etc - many children often chip in with what they believe, or what their parents believe. Makes for very interesting discussion! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CDarwin:
One theory, and I'll try to find a link, is that the gene for homosexuality in men is also found in females. However in females it manifests itself as causing menstruation early, which has obvious advantages and hence why the gene is present in the population.
Humm - interesting. Do you know how it makes its way into the male population? Is it exactly the same gene? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles:
Well she has the view that homosexuality is genetic and that "they were born that way" - she is a Christian and is very outspoken (we get on well - even though we've had our odd spat)!
So would that mean she thinks your god created them that way, and having created them wants them 'punished' for being like that. btw Genetic and 'born that way' are different.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles: quote: Originally posted by CDarwin:
One theory, and I'll try to find a link, is that the gene for homosexuality in men is also found in females. However in females it manifests itself as causing menstruation early, which has obvious advantages and hence why the gene is present in the population.
Humm - interesting. Do you know how it makes its way into the male population? Is it exactly the same gene?
Here is a pretty good summary of the gay gene story. Rather more complicated than most tabloid headlines would have us believe. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=306995 |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
So would that mean she thinks your god created them that way, and having created them wants t
| |
