Re: OT : Idiot America !

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:39:22 +0000, JosephKK wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>> On 12 Nov 2005 04:47:45 -0800, Winfield Hill
>>>John Larkin wrote...
>>>> Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which includes the freedom to be a creationist, or an idiot,
>>>>>> if you choose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but it does not include a right to cram it down my throat.
>>>>
>>>> Bizarre. Who is cramming creationism down your specific throat?
>>>
>>> It's being crammed down the throats of kids in Kansas. You don't
>>> think it's time now to push back against this rapidly-growing
>>> movement? Pat Robertson's loud condemnation of the PA citizens
>>> for "voting God out of their town" is just the latest round in a
>>> battle that seems to grow by the day. It's appropriate to say as
>>> a warning, neither creationists nor idiots have a right to cram
>>> it down our throats, as they're energetically seeking to do. But
>>> I do worry we are steadily moving toward a Supreme Court that'll
>>> allow them to do that one day.
>>
>> I had a sort-of-debate with my son-in-law about this. His position is
>> that religion is the arch-enemy of science and math. I pointed out
>> that the Jesuits are famous for being scientists and mathematicians,
>> and are famous for being religious, too. He's not as good an engineer
>> as I am.
>>
>> He also argues (as have others here) that random mutation and natural
>> selection can explain everything and that DNA can't be smart or
>> clever. My daughter, who is a PhD botanist who does a lot of DNA stuff
>> herself, sort of took my side, at least as regards the mutation
>> thing... cited some interesting recent papers about RNA.
>>
>> Face it, the average kid doesn't give a lab rat's ass about evolution,
>> DNA, or science in general. And mentioning the uncertainties of
>> evolution, or alternate concepts, won't rot anybody's mind. If the
>> native Fijians believed the sun was born in a wicker basket, are we
>> not allowed to mention that either?
>>
>> If we are "alive" and "intelligent" by some standard, why can't DNA be
>> "alive" and "intelligent" by some other standard? After all, we are
>> just an artifact of DNA.
>>
> Nice. This complements my consideration of what is alive. I found that if
> you could mix "non-alive" chemicals in the proper ratios in a test tube,
> stir them up and end up with a live virus; that the traditional separations
> were no good. I finally decided that electrons might as well be considered
> as living things.

Even photons:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+reflexive+universe%22

Cheers!
Rich


.

Relevant Pages

  • More Parents Taking Kids DNA Samples
    ... More Parents Taking Kids' DNA Samples ... their children's mouths to get a DNA sample just in case they need it if the ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: DNA longevity
    ... And our DNA is not likely to define "upgrade away from DNA" as ... Humans are not just the product of DNA. ... predict which humans it will be, or what memes they bring along with them. ... lots of kids. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: OT : Idiot America !
    ... >>John Larkin wrote... ... Who is cramming creationism down your specific throat? ... >> it down our throats, as they're energetically seeking to do. ... who is a PhD botanist who does a lot of DNA stuff ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: Brain Areas Differ According to Politics
    ... Having read thousands of medical research papers in a spectrum of ... In fact we know very little, but if I was a neuron I would store info in DNA like structures. ... That would explain how many things we can remember and the context, and also how a single neuron ... Where kids are born with some built in smarts. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: "Mommys little Secret ".....
    ... women and then 'pass' off the kids to their Husbands as their own... ... At least three cases have occurred where DNA testing 'proved' the mother ... Husband),,and her's not..Then He would be the biological Father to the kids ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)