I'm a retired school teacher. I taught in British state schools, where religious education is the norm. Education, not indoctrination. I agree with it. It is necessary for students to learn about an important factor that shapes the human world - religion. I don't mind creationism or intelligent designer spotting being taught, but again, education - what they are, not indoctrination, and certainly not in science classes. I would use them as examples of what science isn't. The writer of the article is somewhat confused about what biological evolution is. It's not about how the world came to be. That's cosmology. It's not about the origin of life, but what happens once you have life. If you are going to teach stuff, you have to understand it yourself first.
[26] The fairies are not to be seized on, and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.
[27] The ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason, by certain charms compounded of metaphysics, and miracles, and traditions, and abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else but to execute what they command them. The fairies likewise are said to take young children out of their cradles, and to change them into natural fools, which common people do therefore call elves, and are apt to mischief.
[28] In what shop or operatory the fairies make their enchantment, the old wives have not determined. But the operatories of the clergy are well enough known to be the universities, that received their discipline from authority pontifical.
[29] When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
[30] The fairies marry not; but there be amongst them incubi that have copulation with flesh and blood. The priests also marry not.
-
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994 . . . Leviathan: Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness . . . Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness, and to Whom it Accrueth . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/leviathan-part-iv-of-the-kingdom
Many points come to mind, but I'll just share a couple.
- You are conflating evolution and cosmology.
- Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't imply agency.
- Your argument against a natural explanation for the origin of the universe is, at its core, an argument from incredulity. That is to say, a logical fallacy.
- There are countless examples of "poor design" in our and other biological constructions, examples that argue *against* deliberate design.
- Even if your argument from design held water, all it would do is point at a Deistic, watchmaker god, which doesn't get us any closer to validating any of the thousands of gods of human history.
As for the teaching matter - I've long supported backpack funding, and letting parents vote. But, and this is a big *but*, using tax dollars to advance any particular religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Hi Peter. No, it's not "incredulity". Using my example of the Circulatory System, I considered whether it's plausible for something so complex to be created by accidental, random mutations. My conclusion: not plausible. It has too many parts, and ALL the parts must exist for the whole darn thing to work at all. And that's just one of zillions of examples of complex, intricate, amazing, incredible things out in nature.
So just how DID the universe and life and everything within come to exist? Actually I kinda left that question wide open, to see what readers might think.
You misunderstand evolution, then. Mutations are random, but natural selection isn't. A mutation that doesn't "work better" disappears from the gene pool, one that does gets propagated forward. Millions and millions of iterations later, you have species evolved to high complexity.
And, as I noted, there are *countless* examples of anatomical bits that make zero sense if considered from a design perspective, but do if seen through the prism of evolution.
Give The Selfish Gene a read, if you're interested.
Monogamy is an unnatural order created by Zionist churchmen to attach vicarious liabilities in the secular law, to control monarchial successions, as well as to establish ecclesiastic control over white female procreativity and individual white male posterity . . . All men are born of a woman, married or not.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche – Children, Kitchen, Church . . . was a slogan delineating the proper role of women in the National Socialist State . . . Adolf Hitler said National Socialism is a male movement. Lebensborn, or “Fountain of Life,” was an SS organization founded by Heinrich Himmler to increase the birth rate of Aryans by providing unmarried mothers shelter in nursing homes so that they would not seek abortions, which were illegal in the Third Reich.
The older pagan sexual mores were much more conducive to the health of Nordic-Scandinavian societies, and much more supportive of women than those of the Jewish god Yahweh, the locust master, the one who drowned the world and demanded a witch be burned alive, or an adulteress be stoned to death . . .
I'm a retired school teacher. I taught in British state schools, where religious education is the norm. Education, not indoctrination. I agree with it. It is necessary for students to learn about an important factor that shapes the human world - religion. I don't mind creationism or intelligent designer spotting being taught, but again, education - what they are, not indoctrination, and certainly not in science classes. I would use them as examples of what science isn't. The writer of the article is somewhat confused about what biological evolution is. It's not about how the world came to be. That's cosmology. It's not about the origin of life, but what happens once you have life. If you are going to teach stuff, you have to understand it yourself first.
[26] The fairies are not to be seized on, and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.
[27] The ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason, by certain charms compounded of metaphysics, and miracles, and traditions, and abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else but to execute what they command them. The fairies likewise are said to take young children out of their cradles, and to change them into natural fools, which common people do therefore call elves, and are apt to mischief.
[28] In what shop or operatory the fairies make their enchantment, the old wives have not determined. But the operatories of the clergy are well enough known to be the universities, that received their discipline from authority pontifical.
[29] When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
[30] The fairies marry not; but there be amongst them incubi that have copulation with flesh and blood. The priests also marry not.
-
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994 . . . Leviathan: Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness . . . Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness, and to Whom it Accrueth . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/leviathan-part-iv-of-the-kingdom
Many points come to mind, but I'll just share a couple.
- You are conflating evolution and cosmology.
- Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't imply agency.
- Your argument against a natural explanation for the origin of the universe is, at its core, an argument from incredulity. That is to say, a logical fallacy.
- There are countless examples of "poor design" in our and other biological constructions, examples that argue *against* deliberate design.
- Even if your argument from design held water, all it would do is point at a Deistic, watchmaker god, which doesn't get us any closer to validating any of the thousands of gods of human history.
As for the teaching matter - I've long supported backpack funding, and letting parents vote. But, and this is a big *but*, using tax dollars to advance any particular religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Hi Peter. No, it's not "incredulity". Using my example of the Circulatory System, I considered whether it's plausible for something so complex to be created by accidental, random mutations. My conclusion: not plausible. It has too many parts, and ALL the parts must exist for the whole darn thing to work at all. And that's just one of zillions of examples of complex, intricate, amazing, incredible things out in nature.
So just how DID the universe and life and everything within come to exist? Actually I kinda left that question wide open, to see what readers might think.
You misunderstand evolution, then. Mutations are random, but natural selection isn't. A mutation that doesn't "work better" disappears from the gene pool, one that does gets propagated forward. Millions and millions of iterations later, you have species evolved to high complexity.
And, as I noted, there are *countless* examples of anatomical bits that make zero sense if considered from a design perspective, but do if seen through the prism of evolution.
Give The Selfish Gene a read, if you're interested.
Monogamy is an unnatural order created by Zionist churchmen to attach vicarious liabilities in the secular law, to control monarchial successions, as well as to establish ecclesiastic control over white female procreativity and individual white male posterity . . . All men are born of a woman, married or not.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche – Children, Kitchen, Church . . . was a slogan delineating the proper role of women in the National Socialist State . . . Adolf Hitler said National Socialism is a male movement. Lebensborn, or “Fountain of Life,” was an SS organization founded by Heinrich Himmler to increase the birth rate of Aryans by providing unmarried mothers shelter in nursing homes so that they would not seek abortions, which were illegal in the Third Reich.
The older pagan sexual mores were much more conducive to the health of Nordic-Scandinavian societies, and much more supportive of women than those of the Jewish god Yahweh, the locust master, the one who drowned the world and demanded a witch be burned alive, or an adulteress be stoned to death . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/satanism-is-a-jewish-cult