Now, I am fully aware that both he and his modern day myrimadons have used socio-biological arguments to make some point or comment that one can attach to ideology or one’s own political hobby horse. Dawkins and Dennett do this as do William Provine and others. Many Darwinian spear carriers have tried to make some handy, all-encompassing philosophy about the REAL nature of the world and our response to it. No doubt the mighty PZ Myserski (now that he knows his name gets misspelled so often, har har) does the same when he blasts the “thumpers”

But either Darwinian descent holds water or it does not. In a recent encounter I was reminded that plate tectonics either stand or don’t even if it causes aggrevation for people who live in California. Likewise no one frets about “micro” gravity (say, a soda can rolling off the table) vs. “MACRO” gravity, as in the moon circling the earth.

I know the implications of such things are vastly different than telling people they are the cumulative result of warm little ponds and time. But we are stuck in 2nd gear in the ID world over Micro vs. Macro evolution. Dawkins claims this is because as creatures who commonly don’t outlive a full century, we don’t see the big picture. We acknowledge insects can change to adapt to flower color and that finches change beak shape, but recoil in horror when 98% DNA comparability is found among chimps and humans and the fact that lions have similar bacteria in their stomachs as humans (indicating that far from the Garden of Eden idealism, lions dined frequently on human meat).

I think it is important to follow up on a hint or two above. Pardon . . .

For, unfortunately, if you are in a Courtroom with a certain Mr Jones presiding, and he thinks your side are “ignorant, stupid, insane . . . or wicked” then he may simply not bother to listen to the reaearch, material facts and reasoning that you adduce.

He may then simply take your opponents’ rhetoric at face value, misrepresentations, inaccuracies and all, and change a few words to produce it as his “brilliant” and “landmark” decision.

Then, that gets headlines, and the power of prejudice to drown out mere facts and proper reasoning therefrom, will assert itself. (Especially given who own too many of the microphones, presses and channels . . .)

But, in the long haul, deceptive rhetoric loses out to logic and facts. But, there is often a very stiff price for refusing to attend to the true state of the case on the merits. (A price that is often to be seen in history and is also being paid now all across the world.)

Pardon my latent cynicism . . . or, is it realism?

GEM of TKI

that it’s unconstitutional to use the name “jesus” in a public setting

Source? You did after all, just use the name “Jesus” in a public setting. I don’t think the cops are at your door.

It’s like a Law of Nature: the Buzzards return to Hinckley, OH and PvM accuses you of “quote-mining.”

Successful court cases mean very little with all of that in mind.

Best regards,
apollo230

Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons.

This strategy has been especially successful in court cases and recent school board elections.

Let’s take Equiano as a model of “intolerance” in the name of the Christian faith.

That is, one man’s reformation is another man’s rebuke.

So let us balance the cry “tolerance” with the point that some behaviours that may be both popular and backed up by powerful interests — behaviours that even protesters and would-be reformers may be tainted by [read Equiano's biography to see . . .] — are objectivley wrong, and for good reason.

We must know where to draw lines, and how to do so with a tear, not with the pounce of a scavenging vulture or of a predatory raging lion. And that is a challenge.

Jesus gave a good start: look for and address the plank in one’s own eye, AND help one’s brother with sawdust in his eye. BOTH-AND, not EITHER-OR.

God, help us!

GEM of TKI