[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[Mark Smith]

On 04.12.2007, at 20:24, Stefano Mori wrote:

> Mark, you said "there is nothing valid in this whatsoever", and as we
> can see, it's not that simple.

Ah but it is. See below...

> Politically we may not wish to give the Creationists an inch, but if a
> Creationist says, "you don't really understand how life evolved",

If a creationist said that, I'd sit up straight and start paying  
attention. It would be the first time a creationist had ever said  
anything reasonable.

What they say is different. To paraphrase: "evolution is wrong, it  
just luck that it sometimes fits, but the bits that fit less well are  
proof that the church was right all along".


Be you double 'ell shite.


> [...]Yes, I agree. The Creationists are barking up the wrong tree.  
> As I
> said earlier, if the system is doing something we don't know what,
> then we just give the I don't know what a name and hope that one day
> we can study it more closely and pick it apart and find sub-processes
> or whatever and so on.


Lets back up a pace, or two. We have said that there *may*  
theoretically be one single additional influence not-accounted for by  
Hoyle's model. Its a theoretical possibility. The first things we need  
to do are (in no particular order):

1. design and run experiments to test for its presence (inconceivable !)
2. consider a larger system that includes such an "influencing factor"  
and model what happens to the system when you give the "influencing  
factor" characteristics (massively complex and, of itself, inevitably  
inconclusive).

- there is nothing currently available that suggests we will be able  
to tackle this in any robust way in the near future. Pointless. Where  
were we ?

...ah yes...

defaults write org.worldwiderealscientistsunited.dictatron  
"ChangeAgnosticPosition" 'FALSE'


> Well, I think there's a reason why Creationists picked on evolution
> for their little crusade.

Obviously. Evolution shits on all of the pre-existing creation stories.


> Maybe next they'll pick on string theory.

I doubt it. They'll struggle to find any significant number of  
competent string theorists who'd be willing to sell themselves to the  
creationists and without them, they wouldn't know where to start.


> Any cutting edge science field where there are still unresolved
> questions which they think they can answer with a handy Bible quote.

Weren't you trying to find reasons for why we shouldn't dismiss them  
out of hand ? You seem to be arguing against yourself now.

Mark.