I Love Texas

[Tyyr]

And what of the heathens who follow the 1980 abomination?

[Sonic Glitch]

And what of the heathens who follow the 1980 abomination?

So, I'm forced to ask now: since some people are upset w/ certain aspects of the nBSG series, on a scale of "Good" to "1980" where does nBSG fall?

[Mark]

Well, it WAS always a BSG theme that life here began out there

I'll always like oBSG best........but I'm digging nBSG as well. The show HAS spiraled downward for a while though.

[Reliant121]

I think the problem is that, with no disrespect to American politics (and of course this is only my viewpoint), there is a very blurred line between what is seen as science and religion. To a large number, it may be that the creationist theory is scientifically right, depending on how fervent their secular beliefs may be. Education syllabus seems to be a secular-political issue as much as a purely educational issue, where as here (at least in state schools such as mine) its much much more controlled. Science is science, and its taught. Religion is taught from multiple viewpoints. Anglican christian is required, but another 1 or 2 religious viewpoints must be taught. My school does CoE, Catholicism and hinduism. Some do other things.

[Mikey]

I can see how it would seem that way, but I don't think it's quite accurate. I think it's closer to the mark to say that among the stronghold of creationism in America (the so-called "Bible Belt," etc.) that the separation between science and religion is clear; the issue is that those people prefer religion to science.

...or deem science to be the work of the devil.

...and deem women who can drive or do math to be witches.

...and deem my kind to be strange fruit that just isn't swinging... yet.

[Mark]

You forgot my personal favorite.

"Your people murdered Jesus!"

Schmuck...did you REALLY think Jesus a blond haired, blue eyed gentile????

[sunnyside]

...and deem my kind to be strange fruit that just isn't swinging... yet.

Geez, you lynch one Jew and the whole region can never live it down...

Seriously though, the whole Leo Frank thing was something that I don't remember being in HS history that perhaps should get in there, what with the anti defamation league having grown to such influence and the general warnings against mob mentality and what can come from good intentions without critical thinking (On the part of William Smith)

[Mikey]

I wasn't talking about the Frank case specifically, but "good intentions?" The railroading of Frank, the misappropriation of evidence, the lies of involved detectives, and Frank's murder had nothing to do with justice for Mary Phagan and everything to do with a) scapegoating a Jew and b) making an example of a Northerner who had attained influence in Atlanta.

[Nutso]

Guys, you know that I respect the hell out of ya.....but I have to disagree with you here. Evolution is still a THEORY with as much validity at this point as CREATIONISM. I truly feel that both theories should be presented equally to encourage independant thought.

As soon as one can be PROVEN, they should be carefully treated as such.

I have to take issue with that fragment, good sir.

Creationism has no scientific validity. I doubt Creationism has ever been subjected to scientific scrutiny. When you refer to the theory of Creationism, you refer to something that a bunch of religious zealots got together and tried to explain nature as Biblical truth. The Creationists, who now call themselves Proponents of Intelligent Design Theory, have to my knowledge never attempted to defend the scientific validity of their theory. All they have ever done is try to find holes in the Theory of Evolution- missing links in the fossil record, missing genes, etc. They have presented no evidence to support their theory. They just had an idea and wrote it down, made sure it didn't conflict with the Old Testament and *presto* a theory was born.

Evolution on the other has had scientific studies, has been through over a century of scientific scrutiny and it still being tested. The way insects develop immunities to pesticides; viruses that evolve to overcome antibacterial medication; Fossils showing the development of whales from land mammals to giants of the seas. And these are just evidence to support the theory of evolution. Where is the evidence of that caliber presented to support Creationism?

Creationists had their chance to defend their fiction at the Dover trial. Some of them didn't even show up. The real Scientists did. The evolutionary biologists who could explain genome sequences and transcendental fossils and Evolution showed and these things to a Bush-appointed, Conservative Republican judge.

The best way to teach Creationism is in the home or the church/synagogue/temple. It's an article of religious faith, and in the U.S. you can't teach that in Government funded schools. I am not sure why anyone would want the government teaching their kids religion anyway.

[Lighthawk]

Guys, you know that I respect the hell out of ya.....but I have to disagree with you here. Evolution is still a THEORY with as much validity at this point as CREATIONISM. I truly feel that both theories should be presented equally to encourage independant thought.

As soon as one can be PROVEN, they should be carefully treated as such.

I have to take issue with that fragment, good sir.

Creationism has no scientific validity. I doubt Creationism has ever been subjected to scientific scrutiny. When you refer to the theory of Creationism, you refer to something that a bunch of religious zealots got together and tried to explain nature as Biblical truth. The Creationists, who now call themselves Proponents of Intelligent Design Theory, have to my knowledge never attempted to defend the scientific validity of their theory. All they have ever done is try to find holes in the Theory of Evolution- missing links in the fossil record, missing genes, etc. They have presented no evidence to support their theory. They just had an idea and wrote it down, made sure it didn't conflict with the Old Testament and *presto* a theory was born.

Evolution on the other has had scientific studies, has been through over a century of scientific scrutiny and it still being tested. The way insects develop immunities to pesticides; viruses that evolve to overcome antibacterial medication; Fossils showing the development of whales from land mammals to giants of the seas. And these are just evidence to support the theory of evolution. Where is the evidence of that caliber presented to support Creationism?

Creationists had their chance to defend their fiction at the Dover trial. Some of them didn't even show up. The real Scientists did. The evolutionary biologists who could explain genome sequences and transcendental fossils and Evolution showed and these things to a Bush-appointed, Conservative Republican judge.

The best way to teach Creationism is in the home or the church/synagogue/temple. It's an article of religious faith, and in the U.S. you can't teach that in Government funded schools. I am not sure why anyone would want the government teaching their kids religion anyway.

Well put.

[sunnyside]

I wasn't talking about the Frank case specifically, but "good intentions?" The railroading of Frank, the misappropriation of evidence, the lies of involved detectives, and Frank's murder had nothing to do with justice for Mary Phagan and everything to do with a) scapegoating a Jew and b) making an example of a Northerner who had attained influence in Atlanta.

I may be underinformed, but were there other Jew lynchings? (In the Southern US I mean. )

In any case the good intention comment was, as I was trying to indicate, to do with William Smith. As I understand it, he was a good person who worked to defend blacks in the south when they would otherwise simply be found guilty because they were black. But in the Frank case he drive for "justice" blinded him to the reality of the situation until too late, which is that his black client was actually guilty, and the Jew was not. I think he did it out of a lack of critical thinking because, once he finally figured things out, he was pushing to have the verdict changed.

Regarding Intelligent Design. It is...designed..such that it's predictions and evidence are identical to that of the current theory of the evolution of life on the planet. The only "evidence" it can present are holes in evolutionary theory, and it is formulated such that no evidence could be leveled against it, unless said evidence also threw out much of what is believed about the evolution of life on the planet (such a an ancient spaceship).

[Mikey]

I may be underinformed, but were there other Jew lynchings? (In the Southern US I mean. )

Probably not vigilantism - at least not reported or famed like the Frank case - but I've heard anecdotally about some out-and-out pogroms.

In any case the good intention comment was, as I was trying to indicate, to do with William Smith. As I understand it, he was a good person who worked to defend blacks in the south when they would otherwise simply be found guilty because they were black. But in the Frank case he drive for "justice" blinded him to the reality of the situation until too late, which is that his black client was actually guilty, and the Jew was not. I think he did it out of a lack of critical thinking because, once he finally figured things out, he was pushing to have the verdict changed.

Ah. I suppose, though as you mention it gets to a point at which the good intentions of trying to help blacks of the time turned into an assumption of innocence simply because other blacks were railroaded. I don't buy that, any more than I would proclaim Frank's innocence simply becasue he was Jewish. Again, as you mention, Smith did seem to come around, to the point that I believe he had a hand in the commutation of Frank's sentence.

[shran]

I believe that intelligent design is absolute crap. At best it is incompetent design. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umW4hnR ... re=related