Re: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 13:03:41 GMT

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD Evil & Buddhism, or Politics & Buddhism"

    Thanks Joe.

    Quote - Ian, I have always admired your calmness.

    I may have to frame that for my next work appraisal.
    Not sure you'd see me as so calm if you saw the bood-vessels standing out on
    my neck at this end :-)
    Hopefully I've said the necessary in my most recent respnse to Platt.

    Ian G

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau@sbcglobal.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:27 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

    > On 13 November 2004 4:20 PM Ian writes:
    >
    > I've said enough already, but ...
    >
    > "Shouldn't we teach what people believe to be true ?"
    >
    > True, but why would "intellectuals" bother to debate / argue what is
    > true, if the truth could be found by popular democracy ?
    >
    > "They call it God now only because they don't know about Quality ?" I
    > don't mind what they "call" it, but I am concerned what they think it
    > is. Whether they call it God or Quality, I'd be horrified if they
    > thought it was a transcendent purposeful being.
    >
    > "Allowing room for both God and Darwin ?" But why must it always be a
    > binary debate ?
    >
    > Ian
    >
    > Hi Ian and all,
    >
    > Ian I have always admired your calmness. When there have been difficult
    > postings on the list, calmness is king. I went back in Lila's Child,
    > Chapter 14 [March 1998] to [April 1998] pp 403 to 474. Struan proposed
    > that the MOQ's inquiry into morals was based on 'emotivism'.
    >
    > No one could answer him. If they said yes to 'emotivism' he would
    > counter that emotivism is subjective and unverifiable and not
    > metaphysics. If they said no, then what was the basis of ethics. The
    > metaphysics of ethics in the MOQ could not be established and An Inquiry
    > into Morals, was a subjective unprovable assumption of LILA.
    >
    > Now evolution is a problem. Again no satisfactory answer. IMO mystical
    > experience is subjective and verifiable. A new meaning for subjective.
    > The statement 'All men are equal' is dogma from mystical experience, and
    > is verifiable as all men have mystical experience. 'All men are free' is
    > again a dogma of verifiable mystical experience. The Native American
    > matrix. Rhetoric 2 logic 0.
    >
    > Different moral levels inorganic, organic, social, intellectual are
    > dogmas of verifiable mystical experience. The origins or evolution of
    > the levels are obscure and not important, and can be left to further
    > study like the origins of planet Earth.
    >
    > Joe
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Ian Glendinning
    > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 3:31 PM
    > Subject: Re: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
    >
    >
    > I've said enough already, but ...
    >
    > "Shouldn't we teach what people believe to be true ?"
    > True, but why would "intellectuals" bother to debate / argue what is
    > true, if the truth could be found by popular democracy ?
    >
    > "They call it God now only because they don't know about Quality ?"
    > I don't mind what they "call" it, but I am concerned what they think
    > it is. Whether they call it God or Quality, I'd be horrified if they
    > thought it was a transcendent purposeful being.
    >
    > "Allowing room for both God and Darwin ?"
    > But why must it always be a binary debate ?
    >
    > Ian
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Richard Loggins
    > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 9:51 PM
    > Subject: Re: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
    >
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I have to wonder if nearly half of adult America sees something - a
    > creative something - that is missing from Darwinism and science at large
    > that lies behind everything it bludgens into mindless mechanisms. They
    > call it God now only because they don't know about Quality, but all
    > these people sense something that they are not willing to sluff off.
    > Science doesn't seem to be making inroads into their beliefs, because
    > it's missing something key: the creative source of all things. All the
    > more reason in my view that Creationism or ID should be taught
    > side-by-side with evolution. Those are closer to the truth of the MoQ
    > and it is what people believe. Shouldn't we teach what people believe to
    > be true?
    > Rich
    >
    > From the Nov. 2004 issue of National Geographic -
    > "According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand
    > telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent
    > of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty
    > much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or
    > so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.
    >
    > Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing
    > room for both God and Darwin-that is, divine initiative to get things
    > started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more
    > than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.)
    > Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved
    > from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.
    >
    > The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so
    > many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown
    > hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly
    > the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist
    > conviction-that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans-has never
    > drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American
    > populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it
    > mattered most."
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 19 2004 - 13:26:23 GMT