# Grand Canyon created by Noah's flood - BushCo.



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Press Release

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

PARK SERVICE STICKS WITH BIBLICAL EXPLANATION FOR GRAND CANYON
Promised Legal Review on Creationist Book Is Shelved

Washington, DC — The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Despite telling members of Congress and the public that the legality and appropriateness of the National Park Service offering a creationist book for sale at Grand Canyon museums and bookstores was “under review at the national level by several offices,” no such review took place, according to materials obtained by PEER under the Freedom of Information Act. Instead, the real agency position was expressed by NPS spokesperson Elaine Sevy as quoted in the Baptist Press News:

“Now that the book has become quite popular, we don’t want to remove it.”

In August of 2003, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, by Tom Vail, a book explaining how the park’s central feature developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters that there would be a high-level policy review, distributing talking points stating: “We hope to have a final decision in February [2004].” In fact, the promised review never occurred –

In late February, Barna crafted a draft letter to concerned members of Congress stating: “We hope to have a final decision on the book in March 2004.” That draft was rewritten in June and finally sent out to Congressional representatives with no completion date for the review at all; 
NPS Headquarters did not respond to a January 25th memo from its own top geologists charging that sale of the book violated agency policies and undercut its scientific education programs; 
The Park Service ignored a letter of protest signed by the presidents of seven scientific societies on December 16, 2003. 
“Promoting creationism in our national parks is just as wrong as promoting it in our public schools,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”

The creationist book is not the only religious controversy at Grand Canyon National Park. One week prior to the approved sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered that bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses be returned and reinstalled at canyon overlooks. Superintendent Alston had removed the bronze plaques on legal advice from Interior Department solicitors. Murphy also wrote a letter of apology to the plaques’ sponsors, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. PEER has collected other instances of what it calls the Bush Administration’s “Faith-Based Parks” agenda.

http://www.peer.org/press/524.html


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

You know, when some of these right-wingers make charges about religious fanatics controlling Iran, etc., they should look in their own backyard.

Pathetic.

It's about time to re-read the Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> It's about time to re-read the Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.


I saw the movie starring Robert Duvall.

Ever since then, I have thought of it as "The Handmaid's Tail".

Sorry, but I just couldn't help it!

Cheers


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Yes, the great flood would have happened here in the new world that wasn't discovered by Europeans until 1000AD (or by Christians until 1500AD). Riiiight.

The annoying thing is that archaeologists have a pretty good theory of where and when the great flood actually happened in the old world.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Calling Bush a moron???????.........does a disservice to morons.  

If this keeps up I can guarantee you a huge flight of intellectual capital to Canada, Europe and even China.

Stem cell research, litigation, denying global climate change - eventually sane people say quietly enough is enough and leave.

Shanghai has already attracted some with it's state of the art bio-sciences program.

Ignorance and fundamentalism is alive and well on both sides.
In the US there is little excuse for it.
Not a single other first world nation suffers under this kind of idiocy.
More's the pity


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have seen the Grand Canyon from both rims and can honestly say that it would take more than a flood to create this marvel of nature. Just my humble opinon.


----------



## Codger (Aug 1, 2004)

Noah's Ark was discovered on Mount St Helens. Unfortunately it was lost during the recent eruption. Doth sayest the Shrubbery.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_"I have seen the Grand Canyon from both rims and can honestly say that it would take more than a flood to create this marvel of nature. Just my humble opinion"_

Well it it WAS a flood - rather several million years worth of floods that carved it over time. I agree it is an awesome spectacle.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, no doubt that a flood could have caused the Grand Canyon, but not a flood lasting just 150 days (Genesis 7:24). Between erosion by flooding and running water as well as ice, vulcanism, wind, and, so I learned in Geology, continental drifting, these forces were enough to create the Grand Canyon. Of course, it is believed that this process started 20 million years ago, and was not nearly complete by 5 million years ago. 

I freely admit that I am biased in favor of a geological rather than a biblical creation theory pertaining to the Grand Canyon. Not wanting to sound disrespectful, I am more interested in the age of rocks than the "rock of ages". Still, this is my view and I others should reach their own conclusions as a result of careful reflection upon the historical, religious and geological facts that are currently at hand.

Still, from my perspective as a poet (of sorts), I see the Grand Canyon as a work in progress and a symphony to the grandness that Nature has for us to experience if we will but look at it with a poet's eye.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

When i started reading that, I thought I'd see a link to the *Onion* at the bottom....when i didn't, I fear the shrub's re-election even more.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

If someone, like myself, believed in a creator... why couldn't you just look at the grand canyon and just marvel at it for what it is. Why would you need to put a plaque in the view or try to put a explanation on it that the flood caused it.


















Makes me think of the lyrics from Live. "I don't need no one, to tell me about heaven." 

(Someone does need to tell Live about the double negative though)


----------



## george.. (Jun 16, 2003)

The Grand Canyon ain't so grand. We're just shaved monkeys that are easily impressed by big holes in the ground.

This hole is far grander.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Shoot, you don't think Noah was a Martian do you?  

The Grand Canyon is truly an awesome sight, It's so difficult to take in the magnitude of the gash and the beauty of the landscape. But don't these sort of ridiclulous proclamations do the evangelicals and Creationists more harm than good? Literal interpretation of the Bible is rarely supported by mainstream Christianity and it's as if these people think the Book was written with them personally in mind.

The existance of the earth and its phenomenal beauty gives us all pause for thought, for all sorts of reasons.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Well, I suppose there's always a place for a Funny section on the bookshelves in National Park Service shoppes. 

On the one hand, books like this are for simple folk who need a baby-explanation for natural phenomena. On the other, they are the thin end of a terrifying wedge which, if allowed, will drive the human race back into the Dark Ages. All of the intellectual accomplishments stemming from the Renaissance, the Enlightenment etc. will be nullified and control will pass to totalitarian fundamentalists.

This sort of political control of science has been tried before - Soviet science (Lysenko?) and Nazi science to name two instances.

Creationists don't seem to want their views taught or appreciated alongside mainstream science. They want theirs to be the ONLY version. Their view should be treated as a wacky oddball entertainment, the way books on UFOs, ghosts, fairies, ESP and time-travel are.

Damn pussyfooting around with these people. They should be exposed for the dangerous charlatans they are.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Uh oh now you've pissed off the UFOers.  Lumping them with Creationists....tut tut....


----------



## kermit (Oct 9, 2004)

The ghosts and fairies are now pissed off for being lumped in with the UFO ers.. just on the eve of Halloween









Seriously, I have met americans who thought the Canadarm was a US invention; there is no misty biblical myth or geological evidence to suggest this, however.









Why shouldn't the Great Flood have happened in the US? I undertand it was to wipe out iniquity and evil. The size of the hole is probably made to measure








Noah and the ark were probably whisked away by the remnants of the CIA at the time, in a Roswellian cloak of secrecy, and stuck on the top of a mountain in a far distant land, where they were sure they would never be found.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Ooops.

My intemperate remarks concerning UFOs can be attributed, perhaps, to the mildly toxic effects of a surfeit of dressed crab for supper last night. As for the fairies … er … I'd better be careful about stepping on cracks in the pavement for a while.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

I enjoy Creation Science literature for the simple reason that it challenges "Scientific Faith". It's like the mathematicians that dabble in 2-dimensional worlds to help them see the 3-d world better (nb: I know the 2-d concept is not pure, it requires a micron wide third dimension.) The currrent issue of National Geographic is dedicated to countering Creation Science claims, so there's the benefit.
Having said that, the flood view of the Grand Canyon is too simplistic. Creationists are not taking a local big flood and transplanting it to North America. They view the flood as a single cataclysmic event that split the continents, etc. The Grand Canyon evidence seems to support a more recent historical event.
Here's the kicker: review the Biblical creation account. The light from the heavens is created before the source of the light (stars, moon, etc). I take this to indicate that God wishes to have the whole package conform to scientific laws and so it becomes difficult to separate one article of faith (Creation position) from another (Science creation position). Nor should either study be stifled because limiting human knowledge is certainly not an aim of the Bible either. If Creation Sceince was thecritical component, it would certainly take up more than half a page of a significantly large volume.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now you've pissed off Sherman's Lagoon 

Crab dinner!!!!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_"Scientific Faith"_. = oxymoron.

It's not a religion. Science is a process.

People might found metaphysical beliefs or faith from what the method reveals or fails to reveal but the two terms don't belong together as any kind of a useful descriptor and it's a damaging trend in my mind.

Like saying Mathematical Faith.....a non starter. Physics and metaphysics. Different memes entirely.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Not … Sherm …

Aaaarrgh. Where's my lucky rabbit's foot?


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Sorry, "scientific faith" is not necessarily an oxymoron. Everytime a person begins with "Let us assume this so we can do that.", they are making a faith statement. Therefore. every hypothesis is a faith statement until verified by proofs.
Everytime a person does an action, not knowing for sure that it will follow through, they are performing a faith action. So, daily, you are making a faith statement/action when you: commit to being someplace in the future; turn your car key expecting it to start; sending an email expecting it to arrive at its destination. 

Mathematical Faith: ever follow the arguments over giving "0" a numerical value. Something that doesn't exist factors into an equation. Centuries long debate.

To me, it is equally damaging/dangerous to separate the metaphysical from the physical as it is to link them. I believe (faith statement) that we should always be looking for the joining and dividing points. That's what makes us sapient.

(examples:
separating metaphysical from physical - US not recognizing Muslim needs in Iraq/Saudi Arabia; 
not separating metaphysical from physical - Jihad, genocide of First Nation)

In the context of what started this thread it is important to have a separation of church and state. It is also as important not to have "a-theistic" beliefs censor theistic beliefs as it is not to have the reverse. Americans, with their polarizing philosophies have trouble reconciling these two positions. 

This book is not being challenged because it holds a stupid viewpoint, stupidity has never stopped the American public from making a book a best-seller, or any other context a successful money-making enterprise. Something else is being challenged here, that is what we should be aware of.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The problem here is the word 'faith'. If we accept that faith means to 'believe without evidence' or 'believe despite conflicting evidence' then faith and science have no common ground.

Science is the process of testing falsifiable hypotheses, and, as such, has no room for belief without (or despite conflicting) evidence. When scientists say 'let us assume..." they are not saying "we believe...". Scientific assumptions can be tested.

On the other hand, if you argue that 'faith' means any 'belief' that has not been unequivocally proved, then science is full of 'faith.' Very little can be 'proved', and science is generally not in the business of proving, but rather of _disproving_. Occasionally, an aspect of nature can be completely described, and therefore certain hypotheses can be proved, but more commonly our understanding is incomplete, and we can therefore only disprove hypotheses, but never prove them.

Cheers

[ October 30, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: bryanc ]


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

It's really a shame that the most ignorant people are often the loudest (because insecure people almost need to shout loudly to convince themselves) and the ones that get the most attention.  It's these fanatics (that I hope are in the minority) that cause all of us so much grief - including intelligent Christians.

It makes me miss Stephen Jay Gould even more.  

At least we still have Jane Goodall.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, Stephen Jay Gould left us all way too soon. His was the form of intellectualism that could withstand even the harshest of criticism.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

bryanc: I agree with that. How many discussions get thrown off course because of definitions that are not agreed to? If people can agree to the idea that large parts of these issues depend on "best guess" scenarios, then, I think, we've conquered a major hurdle.
You are also right to point out the different aims or focusses: one seeks to prove, the other seeks to disprove. And, in the quest for knowledge, there should be no issue with that. The scary part is what to do with that knowledge (e.g. the science of Eugenics).

In this case, the historians' best guess of an earthquake and lake emptying beats the best guess of the Creation Science.

So then, what is wrong with a gov't agency, selling a book that has a mythological explanation for the Grand Canyon? I'm sure (best guess, I don't actually know) that First Nation books explaining the Canyon from their viewpoint are also sold (if so, it's a good thing). Almost any book that a US gov't agency would sell on their treatment of First Nations would also be a mythology, but I digress.

Notes: 
not our government, so big deal; 
the book is selling generating revenue for the gift shop, this is a good thing, isn't it?

Don't you love these kinds of discussions? I do.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mythological is metaphysical - the problem is the government is not selling it as a mythological story it's sold as an alternative "scientific" explanation.

Enjoy mythology all you want, I certainly do, even found your mythology on what scientific method discovers, just don't confuse a belief with a method, or mix metaphysics with physics.

Your analogies alone show you are mixing moral issues into the discussion of physical principles. Moral issues are human issues - the universe has no moral issues, humans and likely other intelligent self aware life do.
Resolving them may be based on science or belief or a mix between the two that may change over time ( ie homosexuality where science impacts some religious belief systems)

Keeping the terms and concepts straight allows meaningful discussion in each realm and even between the two realms ( as above with homosexuality/morals/belief ) without spiralling into impossible to resolve arguments.

Scientific method provides the understanding to build an atom bomb.
Mores of the current society ( the US at war ) , individual ethics ( Einstein's, Oppenheimers ), beliefs ( Truman's and others) and human interaction as a species ( WWII in the pacific) decide its use or not.

An argument could be made that since the Japanese Emperor was considered a divinity by the Japanese people only a force of such power that it could be viewed as "divine" could change the course of Japanese thinking and allow and end to the war. Had the emperor not wielded his influence may have gone on despite the atomic attack.

Scientific method is a tool, period. How the results of discoveries made by the rigourous use of scientific are used is another matter entirely.

The real danger is in blunting that tool by imposing beliefs on the scientific community that stifles or strangles research.

There's lots here

http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm 



> What's Next:
> Earth Is Flat?
> *Bush administration officials have continued to spin, manipulate, and suppress scientific facts in pursuit of political goals—despite a plea from 5,000 top U.S. scientists to restore scientific integrity* to the policy making process. more


So this little booklet at the Grand Canyon is the visible tip of a very dangerous ice berg the current US regime is steering towards. That's why it's NOT OKAY.  

It's not a thing for people to view lightly in my mind. It strikes at the heart of both the scientific and intellectual community and at the separation of church and state.

Which is WHY Macspectrum started the thread about it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Methinks this thread is making mountains out of mole hills.

Or is that canyons out of drainage ditches?

The whole issue is a waste of bandwidth IMHO.

Anyone who takes the Noah's flood theory occurring in the U.S. is seriously in need of some help. Are average Americans really that easily duped?

Wait, don't answer that!

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Therein lies the problem. The nation with the most guns and most power is the most ignorant of reality in comparison to other first world nations.

Also it's exactly your approach that "oh it's nothing" that allows "encroachment by complaisance."

It's no one thing that is so dangerous in the NeoCon agenda its the sum of the overall "things".
A small booklet in the Grand Canyon is indicative of the massive challenge to the integrity of the scientific community.

Have a hard time believing what American's believe??? Here you go.



> According to this New York Times article (free registration required) *Americans are three times more likely to believe that the Biblical story of the virgin birth of Jesus is true (83%) than are likely to believe that Evolution is true (28%).* The article also states that a majority of Americans (58%) also feel that a belief in God is necessary to be moral. The article goes on to say that this is particularly interesting given that many Biblical scholars will admit that the evidence of a virgin birth is shaky at best.
> 
> *The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America.*
> 
> ...


Here's an amazing compendium.

http://quinnell.us/society/annoyances/stupid.html 

The religious section is down right scary and this is only part of that section



> Religion
> 
> 90% of those surveyed believe in God. (PRN, 2.26.03)
> 
> ...


Fertile ground for the NeoCons and indicative of how out of step the US is with the rest of the world.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

So much for the "separation of church and state".

I don't know how accurate those surveys are, or how misleading the questions were, but I felt very much as you feel about the American trend, Macdoc. Having traveled extensively throughout the US, religion plays a huge role in people's lives and there's nothing wrong with that, except that there's no forward progress. Even in stoic Catholicism there was some progress as scientific discoveries were confirmed. This reversal is troubling, especially in a country which was the most progressive industrially and has become the most powerful nation on earth. Becoming socially backward will spell it's doom, how this will affect us here in Canada is worrisome.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

KPS each of the cited numbers are explained on the "Sources" portion of the website and I'd be happy if you reviewed a bit of it.
Taken as a whole the point of the list fits many other stated observations even if one or the other may be off a bit.
It's the larger picture that's scary.

Here's another article from Wired this month

*The Crusade Against Evolution * 
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hi MacDoc
I've seen those stats and accept them as real. My problem with them is that if the people truly held those belief, the world would be a different place. There should be a difference between people who hold religious beliefs and those who don't. It shows up in their words but not their actions. That is sad.

The issue with "science" as you described earlier is two fold. It is not pure nor is it complete. Therefore it should not be treated as such. Nor should it be viewed in moral neutrality. It should always be challenged.
There is a scientific conceit that all that can be known is presently known. We can see that in each historical age. So, the genocide of First Nations was well supported by "scientific knowledge" (and, yes, "religious beliefs") as was slavery. We would not accept that science today.
Scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and in many cases it is the ethicists that are driving it. For example, my dad's pschology manuals from the sixties lists homosexuality as a madness. We've seen that scientific viewpoint change, like the sixteenth century scientific studies of witches, to a more humane viewpoint.
If we take a neutral view to science, we end up with the guilt of those who stood by and watched the Nazi science machine go to work unfettered because it was "scientific". That was wrong and bad science.

That is why I would accept the validity of Creation Science, or any other religion, challenging Science. They are good checks and balances for each other. Far from blunting each other the process should sharpen each position, since if they are both true they will eventually align. (Careful with the argument to that statement.)

While I agree that the US is not heading in a good direction ("where are we going, and why are we in this handcart"), there is also a great danger to the suppression of religions' beliefs and expressions. (Especially when, as your stats showed, they make little impression on the US society.)

got to go, got candies to give out, good night.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

archangel, an intriguing post that will spawn much discussion.

Well put.

Cheers


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Archangel, Creation "Science" does not challenge science.

Creation Science is not science.

Rather, I believe, Creation Science "challenges" all that is good in our present, rather precariously balanced civilisation.

Science challenges science through the scientific method.

People distort, subvert and prostitute science for personal, political or religious gain. Sadly, there is vast ignorance about what actually constitutes "science". Too many Yahoos have their dirty little fingers in the pot, making false claims, hoodwinking the gullible.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AA you still fail to understand - scientific method is a method, not a theory, not a belief system.
Until you get there it's a futile discussion.
You COULD discuss why 90%+ of the top scientific community have concluded aetheism represents their choice in view of the universe.
THEN you have the basis for discussion. They've derived that from their experience and understanding of the universe as it's revealed through scientific methods - their view derives from that but is not dictated by that - they draw their conclusion as individuals..

Others choose books, writings, ideologues, prophets, oral histories to build their metaphysical view of the universe and their place in it.

Physics, engineering, agriculturalists etc take repeatable principals understood through scientific discovery and transform the knowledge of the principles operations into repeatable physical phenomena - such as an atomic bomb or a genetic progression in plants.

A belief in the efficacy of magic might appear to work in the real world for a time say in making offerings for good crops. It will NOT build a tractor to consistently predictably provide the right conditions for maximum crops.

Science provides the understanding and repeatable skills to grow that food.
What it does not do is provide guidance about how to deal with the surfiet of humans that result from greater crop yields.

Those are ethical and moral conundrums and questions and for THAT we look to philosophers, teachers, religions, wise men, our fellow humans, political consensus. etc.

No sacred text or philisophical treatise would get Neil Armstrong to or from the moon or feed the billions on the planet.

They CAN guide and inform how we as social and tribal animals conduct ourselves in our interaction with others, the planets resources and the other species we share with.

Honour, is a metaphysical concept. Gravity is a physical theory.

Honour will inspire great debate amongst individuals and nations.

Gravity and how it functions inspires great debate amongst quantum physicist.

They are totally different. Gravity will not affect "honour" beyond the drop of a fired bullet in a duel.

Honour is not amongst orbits.

Keep the terms straight and the discussion can be valuable for the metaphysical OR the physical.

"Creation science" in the sense it's being employed is an oxymoron and very dangerous in my mind and that of the science community at large. Ignore their concerns at your peril.

••••••

BTW speaking of scientific method - if anyone can catch "Speakers for the Dead" this week on PBS it has a terrific and well researched explanation for the witch burnings in Salem and other parts of the world.
A brilliant breakthrough concept and years of support work laid out in a fascinating story that will mesmerize you.

Catch it if you can and remember.......... you ARE what you eat


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Snapple Quaffer
While I may disagree with some of the findings of the Creation Scientists I would hesitate to challenge their credentials. As a previous post pointed out, they are coming from a different perspective than most scientists. Specifically, they are looking to prove rather than disprove (Biblical) God in science. Either position is valid and helps lead to the truth. Using MacDoc's analogy, as long as it is a sharpening process the arguments have positive value.

Let me try and put it this way. Darwin took several hack scientific principles and combined them to formulate a new one. He tidied them up to try and reconcile with the religious ruled science of his time. The two sciences were not able to reconcile so they challenged each other and refined their arguments. Darwins position was a better expression so it held the day. However, it had many flaws, that were picked on by its critics, the (proto) Creation Scientists. In response to the criticisms, scientific specialization developed. The sciences of archeology, paleontology, anthropology, etc, all grew out of the need to respond to the scientific attacks on Darwin's proposal. Now, we are in a position of recognizing that Darwin has a more credible case but we also have to acknowledge that there is quite a difference between Darwin's first statement and the present day models. Some of the early evidences have been disproved or discredited, while others have been discovered or reinforced.

The best evidence for my statement would be this months National Geographic which is dedicated to this very question. Their response that Darwin was right is a result of many confirming studies done because of the scientific challenges made. 

Again, back to the book, as long as it one of the books available, what is the problem? If it is the only book available then that is a serious problem. That was the intent of the separation of Church and State and to go the other way, removal of books, is a violation of this because the state is then endorsing an a-theist system as opposed to an open system. Non-religion is a religion: both positions are faith based.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Archangel wrote


> Specifically, they are looking to prove rather than disprove (Biblical) God in science. Either position is valid and helps lead to the truth.


As much as I think you're probably thinking reasonably critically about this, and that is good, I really have to jump on this very common and very dangerous misconception.

"Creation Science" is an oxymoron for the very reason you allude to. They start with their conclusion (that biblical creation is true) and then look for evidence to support (prove) their case. This is exactly the opposite of what science does.

Science starts with the evidence, and then tries to build theories that explain the evidence and which (importantly) make falisfiable predictions that can be tested (hypotheses). If these hypotheses turn out to be correct, the theory is considered to be supported (not proved). If the hypotheses turn out to be false, the theory has to be changed or abandoned in favor of a theory that makes better predictions. Do you understand how this is fundamentally different than what is called 'Creation Science'?

Creationists are always going on about how science is just another 'faith' or how they have Creation Science that should be taught in biology classes, but they're desperately wrong on both counts. Science does not operate on faith (it operates on skepticism...the opposite of faith) and Creation Science isn't science (it's the opposite of science...it's marketing).

What is appalling about the topic at hand - that the NPS is selling Creationist lit in it's gift shops - is that the US government is supporting this erosion of the distinction between science and non-science at a time when it's citizens are most desperately in need of clarification of this difference.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_Using MacDoc's analogy, as long as it is a sharpening process the arguments have positive value._

Hello.......????????
Want to tell me where that came from








*That is totally NOT my view*.  

•••••• 

"_Non-religion is a religion: both positions are faith based._
Neither of those statements are correct.
Get your terms straight....you're as muddled and dangerous as Bush and Co.  



> The Oxford English Dictionary, 1971:
> Religion:
> Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please *a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.*
> 
> ...





> YourDictionary.com
> Religion:
> 1a.* Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.*
> 
> ...


While there are colloquial uses ( point 4 ) such as following a baseball team "religiously" this is NOT the manner in which it's being used in this case.
The Bush& Co neoCons are using their power forward THEIR religious beliefs.
Bush abrogated and insulted the policy of the UN against open displays of any particular religion.....of any religion at all.

This is regime with an agenda, a religious and secular agenda.
Concerned citizens, scientists in America and around the world are sounding the alarm against this danger.

As Gore Vidal observed - Bush would have been tossed from the meeting drafting the Declaration of Independence.

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

With good reason.

Perhaps Bush skipped this class at university




> Treaty of Tripoli
> 
> Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
> 
> ...


I guess that falls into the same categories as treaties with First Nations.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

"what a brave new world that has such people in it."

We are no longer having a fun discussion about the "Separation of Church and State" and censorship, are we?

Time to bail before it gets nastier and ruder and shut down. Sorry that it went this way, MacSpectrum. I tried to stay on the subject.

My last few words on this subject:

MacDoc: I thought better of you. Your analogy to sharpening is here (your post from 1am this morning):


> The real danger is in blunting that tool by imposing beliefs on the scientific community that stifles or strangles research.


Non-religion is a religion> both faith based>or must have total and absolute knowledge to have certainty >omniscient> God> paradox.
Already established either position is a faith statement.

I don't think I fail to understand the scientific method, you don't know me, do you? I've been trying to say both parties have to follow the scientific method all along. I'm going to say that it is naive to believe that it has been followed consistantly by either side.

bryanc:
evidence / conclusion - the word you are looking for is thesis. Both start with a thesis and follow the dialectic from there. That is the scientific process whether one is trying to prove or disprove anything.

Very little of what we have discussed here is repeatable, observable, or quantifiable. Therefore we have not been discussing science, have we? Gravity as a physical theory, MacDoc, check it out: on Sundays it doesn't have a theory.

Closing questions: 
Darwin stated his theory fails if the lens mechanism of the eye can be reproduced. 
Darwin also stated it fails if altruism is found in the animal kingdom.
(not really valid question because Darwin's position is not so prominent anymore, but think the process through.)

Duane Gish asks for an evolutionary mechanism for the expulsion of volatile chemical from the bombardier beetle. Try and work that out using the evolutionary model. 

As I've said before, if there's dialogue then there's value. If there's name calling and entrenching, it's time to walk. 
I'm so glad to have chosen Canada where people are more open minded.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Archangel you're exactly why books like that are so dangerous.
You insist on inaccurate use of language and "pseudo-science".

Do some rereading, come back when you grow up a bit.  

SM - pointing out incorrect use of language and concept is no different than my pointing out incorrect information on formatting a hard drive.

You clearly don't understand theory, scientific method and the difference between those and philosophical or metaphysical concerns.
Just that fact that you put creation stories in the same ontological space as the Theory of Gravity clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of either.

When you learn the difference between a meme and microbe, Buddhism and Bernouli, you can have a rational, meaningful discussion. Until then, pardon me....your ignorance is showing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And so it goes guys.

If you don't agree with the intellect of higher power as written in "The Universe According To MacDoc", you must either "grow up", archangel or be deemed "ignorant", skinnyman.

Name calling in itself, is just as surely ignorance, is it not?

Cheers


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

This is a robust exchange of posts - no more than that.

To return to Macspectrum's original post: there is the line


> _The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces_


Why? Why does a national government have to express approval of a book?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SQ, re you question "Why does a national government have to express approval of a book?", I think that this might be because it is a book printed by the US Federal Government, with taxpayers dollars, and it presents a specific religious view. With the separation of church and state mandates, this is not permitted.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Dr. G., I'm not sure that the book is printed by the Federal Government with tax-payers' dollars. Try this link and see what you think.

The thought occured as to why a Federal Government would use tax-payers' dollars for such a project in any case.

This fiasco is reminiscent of the attempt in the State Legislature of Indiana, sometime in the 1800s, to legally declare the value of pi to be 3.


----------



## skinnyman (Oct 25, 2003)

I just read the entire thread and it disturbs me how archangel is getting jumped on for (amiably, might I add) presenting a viewpoint from a spiritual perspective. If we are considered such an unbiased society, why are so many people closing their minds completely to a religious explanation? Doesn't being unbiased mean being open to and looking at things from all points of view? It's okay not to agree with them, but at least explore the possibility that these other points of view are true before making your stand. And above all, don't say that any explanation you don't agree with is wrong, for that implies that the person who believes in that explanation is wrong.

That's what I saw happen in this thread. I am sorry if I am misrepresenting what actually occurred. In fact, I am confident that no one's intent was to hurt anyone's feelings.

With that in mind, here's _my_ point of view: I think it's great for this book to be in that store. After all, it says right on the cover, "A Different View." It is your choice whether to pick it up and read it, no one is forcing the information upon you. Besides, I don't think anybody's offended that Chapters has a religious section.

Hopefully this thread won't end with everyone refusing to talk to each other. Hopefully people were exposed to a wider perspective on things. Maybe it even got people thinking about what they believe in. Just because it's written in a textbook doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SQ, I thought that you were referring to documents/books printed by the US government which are for sale at US historical sights, national parks and monuments, etc. Mea culpa.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Ah. I see the confusion now. Sorry.

I am mystified, genuinly. It's as daft, to me, as if the Fed. Govt. approved a book written by a Flat-Earther, for sale at a NASA bookshop, on the grounds that people were entitled to their beliefs. I don't want to stretch the comparison too thinly with our Grand Canyon case, though.

I need to go and read my H.L. Mencken again, to restore my Chi. He had no time for Fundamentalism, which is what this is really all about, I think.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SQ, the confusion was on MY part, so no need to apologize. I too like to read H.L. Mencken, although I haven't read him in years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc... the use of language and concepts correctly is not "an opinion" or my opinion.
It's vital. It's one of the very things Dr. G teaches.

Major decisions are going to be made by populaces around the world that will determine how well we as a human species cope with upcoming crisis in climate, population, politics and energy.

Poor conceptualization, popularization of pseudo-science, uneducated, ill-informed decisions are a tremendous impediment to making rational balanced decisions.
By both the government leaders and the people that elect them.

Debate all you like but understand the basics first.
Sloughing it off because it takes some actual thinking and correct language use is far too prevalent...........
Understanding basic principles of language, discourse and ideas leads to productive discussion.

If a wouldbe gardener doesn't know what soil, water or fertilizer is - where do you start a discussion about good growing practices. .








It's pointless....... and that's been my point all along.

You tell them to get a book, read about it then come back and discuss issues once they have some understanding of the basic principles involved.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, re your comment to Sinc that "...the use of language and concepts correctly is not 'an opinion' or my opinion. It's vital. It's one of the very things Dr. G teaches.", keep in mind that language interpretations, by their very nature, are never fully accurate. Syntactically speaking, linguists are usually in agreement about the structure of our language. However, semantically speaking, while understanding the meanings of the words we utilize, there is never full agreement, based on the diversity of schema and context/intent.

Then there is the whole area of pragmatics, which studies how people comprehend and produce a written communicative or speech act in a concrete speech situation. It distinguishes two intents or meanings in each communicative act of communication. One is the informative intent, or the sentence meaning, and the other the communicative intent, or speaker meaning. The ability to comprehend and produce a communicative act is referred to as pragmatic competence which often includes one's knowledge about the "social distance" and the social status between the speakers involved, the cultural knowledge (e.g., politeness), and the linguistic knowledge of explicit and implicit semantic meanings within the language (which is a whole other can of worms). 

This is where Macnutt and I might be talking about the same topic, but on totally different levels and for different reasons. This does not make me right and him incorrect, nor does it make him right and me incorrect. We are just on two different linguistic "planes".


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

I'll add my voice to those who feel "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. One is either a creationist or scientist - the two hold fundamentally different and opposing view points about the age and nature of our "world", it's geographic features and all species that exist (and have existed). 

Creationists are fundamentalist Christians - not scientists. Science and Christianity are not necessarily opposed - but fundamentalism is opposed to everything that does not correspond to its predefined and narrow scope.

The Creation of the term "Creation Science" seems to be driven by a desire amongst fundamentalists to wangle a platform from which to denounce established scientific theory and compete for class time in the nation's schools.

It is ironic and upsetting to witness the deceitful lengths these people go to in order to win influence. The fact that the program has direct ties to the upper levels of government is hardly surprising.

[ November 01, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: vacuvox ]


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

With respect to spiritual explanations of natural phenomena, Skinnyman said:


> Doesn't being unbiased mean being open to and looking at things from all points of view? It's okay not to agree with them, but at least explore the possibility that these other points of view are true before making your stand. And above all, don't say that any explanation you don't agree with is wrong, for that implies that the person who believes in that explanation is wrong.


Although I commend you on your fair-mindedness, there are two fundamentally flawed assumptions underlying your reasoning above.

Firstly, you assume that those of us who reject supernatural (spiritual) explanations of reality have not 'explored the possibilities.' Personally, I have studied these possibilities extensively (I did a minor in philosophy as an undergraduate, and epistemology and metaphysics were two of my favourite fields). Having read extensively, and thought deeply about these issues, I, like many great thinkers before me, have come to the conclusion that rational skepticism demands non-magical/non-spiritual explanations to be tried first. So far, I have encountered no phenomena that have required a supernatural explanation.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, your assertion that one should not state that certain explanations are wrong falls into the trap of conceptual relativism and political correctness. If all explanations are of equal value, then we can never make any progress towards understanding reality. Just because you may disagree with me, and point out where may reasoning is flawed or my data is incorrect, doesn't mean that you don't value or respect me as a person. The culture of science is based on the necessity of constantly challenging each others data, interpretations, and tearing-down painstakingly built theories. That's how we find out what is wrong (and that's why we never *know* we're right). And we have to be able to do this without getting personal about it.

Most of us fail to do this some times, but it's a pretty good system, and it works pretty well.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G I would agree to point. Within any ontological environs there of course are shades of meanings and nuances about which volumes have been written and more will be written yet.

But BETWEEN those environs there is clear agreed on delineation without which communication would be disfunctional in the extreme.

Attempting to "overlay" two totally different spaces with the agenda of adding credence to one........useless, dangerous, destructive.

Discuss morality and ethics in metaphysical space, not mathematical or scientific space.
Science and math make no judgements, humans do.
 
( and yes these delineations are ultimately illusory and manufactured but they lead to concrete repeatable results - 

Bernoulli's principle explains the underlying forces of how planes fly .....whatever human language it's discussed in, the principle remains the same.....there are no "nuances" tho there may be unexplored consequences. ( ie the flyin through the sound barrier was one of those )

There are occasionally overarching treatise, Goedell Escher and Bach, Koestler's Act of Creation to name a couple that can synthesize common principles behind say poetry, music and a mathematical equation but it's a mind bending exercise and like to standing on the moon and assessing the state of your garden. Faint relevance.

It's Orwell all over when "creation science" is given the imprimatur by a government to be taught on an equal footing with scientific principles.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, a most astute posting. Re your point that "But BETWEEN those environs there is clear agreed on delineation without which communication would be disfunctional in the extreme.", I feel that it is because of the disagreement upon a clearly agreed upon "delineation" of terms that leads, in part, to the dysfunctional nature of communication. Your discussions with Macnutt are a prime example of this dysfunction. I am not placing blame, or stating who is correct, just that there is a disjointed communication between the two of you, or, to use a phrase from "Cool Hand Luke" "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah thank you bryanc......another phil major. Sure makes discussing things easier. It is indeed a fascinating trip to take through human thoughts on this over the centuries.



> *If all explanations are of equal value, then we can never make any progress towards understanding reality.* Just because you may disagree with me, and point out where may reasoning is flawed or my data is incorrect, doesn't mean that you don't value or respect me as a person.





> The culture of science is based on the necessity of constantly challenging each others data, interpretations, and *tearing-down painstakingly built theories*


I'd just add an addendum they are torn down only when they are supplanted with new data that provides a better explanation for the phenomena.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G there is also a methodology breakdown with Macnutt and others in that his suppositions are not supported with references.
Sometimes is not nuances - sometimes it's just plain being wrong on the facts. 
It's REAL hard to see and discuss the stars if you THINK it's night and it's really daytime. SSI reality distortion.
Now THAT's a disconnect.










I'm all for starting on common ground and agreed upon basis of fact for discussion.......ie we have a parliamentary system of government and discussing it's pros and cons. If the other side thinks we have an absolute monarchy..........kinda hard to discourse intelligently.

Wishful thinking may be humorous and amusing.....to a point. But it won't get the seeds in the ground, the tractor built, the orbit calculated to get home.............


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

The Adventure of Silver Blaze


> "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
> "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
> "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
> "That was the curious incident." remarked Sherlock Holmes.


Skinnyman: thank you for your kind words and support. I wish to draw your attention to the issue that I never mentioned my own spiritual perspective. Not even sure what that is. My effort was to defend a book, that I don't necessarily agree with, written by an organization that I don't fully agree with, from being censored because of an application of the Principle of the Separation of Church and State. Because of this, I become a great world threat? I haven't even read this book: among book I've read are the Koran, Mac Secrets 5th Edition, Mad Magazine. What are these reactionaries going to do with this information? I try and follow Mushashi and Gindin, I listen to Sibelius and Setzer: now what?

MacDoc: It's been a very long time since someone told me to:


> come back when you grow up a bit


Thank you.
Who do you think you're talking to?
I've been saying this all along, another one of your quotes,( actually bryanc's):


> The culture of science is based on the necessity of constantly challenging each others data, interpretations, and tearing-down painstakingly built theories


Obviously, that challenger has to meet your approval, guess somebody forgot to ask you.

MacDoc: Do you think that Japan reached a militarist state on Dec 6, 1941? That Germany became one in August of 1939? I hope not! Their decline into their world order started in the late 1920's, early 30's. How did it start? Giant steps, no, the people lost their will and power by incremental steps. Small censorships, legal obfuscations, allowing ranters to have power, to dehumanize and demonize were the methods used. (Read John Dower, and come back.)

And that is how Bush's New World Order can come about today, and your kind will be left, like Detreich Bonhoeffer's famous quote, wondering what happened. I will be long gone by then. 
Linking me to Bush, what next?

If the Separation of Church and State is used as a censor > no religions can publish > state of non-religion remains > State now officially sanctions belief of non-belief > paradox.
Essential freedom principle was designed to protect is now lost because of principle. An essential step to creating a totalitarian regime.


Einstein, MacDoc brought him up, once said something like this: more things count than can be counted, somethings that can be counted don't count at all.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Snapple Quaffer
re:


> This is a robust exchange of posts - no more than that.


As the victim/recipient let me say that it was more than that. Most of the comments were cheap shot from behind into the boards.

Especially, as I read in later posts, I'm apparently dealing with faceless University Graduates of philosophy no less. They've certainly acquired skills in their seeking truth, that my instructors and peers failed to pass on to me. We've been gardening on the moon and back again and still missed the question.

I can't help but paraphrase the great Bruce Lee: when I was young and was challenged, I used to say "Shut up, ugly." Then I went to study and learned to dialogue, research and formulate beyond saying "Shut up, ugly." But now that I am a master and have a degree I've learned that all that training is just, "Shut up, ugly." 

To your credit, you started the first chain of exploration in this thread, but it fizzled out under the onslought of such heady discussion. I'll spend some time seeking why the book needed approval in the first place.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />quote:
> The culture of science is based on the necessity of constantly challenging each others data, interpretations, and tearing-down painstakingly built theories


Obviously, that challenger has to meet your approval, guess somebody forgot to ask you.
</font>[/QUOTE]...but they're not using the same sets of data, are they?

One set is verifiable by others, the other is based on mythology...biiiig difference.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

KPS:
My understanding is that, yes, they are using the same data. The problem you are envisioning is the origin of the argument and its role in a particular paradigm. I would suggest alternate paradigms are valid as long as the same standards are applied for the rest of the sequence. 
For example: western medicine studies the sick to learn about the disease, eastern medicine studies the healthy. It is only recently that scientists have been studying clusters of prostitutes who have been unprotected for years in high risk areas and never caught hiv/aids. 
Different starting point, follow correct procedures, peer challenges, etc, etc, and the truth will out.
Let's not talk about the myth of perfect scientific method anymore. It's an ideal that doesn't exist in real life scientific research, okay.

Again, what does this question, fair as it is, have to do with censorship and Principle of Separation of Church and State? Most of the statements made in this thread have been absolute smoke screens, amatuer philosophical tricks, to avoid seeking the answer. 

Why am I being asked and credited with having this knowledge when others have labelled me a great threat? Thank you for your trust in me.
Have you looked for the Creation Science site on the net to see if they post their method? I don't know, I haven't looked myself. Ask yourself, not necessarily you, KPS, why not?
Why argue and insult when the facts might be there? Fundamental Christians are not the only close minded people out there.


----------



## skinnyman (Oct 25, 2003)

I don't think ideas such as the big bang or evolution can be verified. They require faith to believe in. Unfortunately, a lot of textbooks fail to treat these ideas as what they are--theories, not fact. If we can hypothesize that complex life forms somehow arose from a chemical soup, then we can certainly hypothesize that a God designed those lifeforms. Both are valid as theories.

I hate to have to say this, but Macdoc, you have to realize how you are coming off on people in this thread. You have your views and that's great. But don't take the attitude that everything you say is right. I know that you are a nice guy, as many people on this forum have attested over and over. But just realize that in the thread, you appear arrogant. It's not just the whole definition thing (it's easy to define a car, a tree, those are tangible things), I understand what you are getting at there. But please refrain from accusing people of being "ignorant." I may only be a first-year student, but I think I have some insights that other people might find interesting. Isn't the whole point of a forum like this to share one's own thoughts?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> quote:
> "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
> "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
> "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
> "That was the curious incident." remarked Sherlock Holmes


That's an incredibly important concept.....would you care to explain it?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh my!!









Macdoc seems "arrogant in this thread"??









Srtike me dead! This has NEVER happened here at ehmac before! I'm _SHOCKED!!_ and apalled!!
















Too funny!









Out of the mouths of babes...eh, David? 

(somebody STOP me...I'm laughing so hard I'm gonna puke!)


----------



## kermit (Oct 9, 2004)

I don't think that Christ, Krisna, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other prophet, came wielding a hefty book on metaphysics. They didn't even bring the Bible, Koran, or any other text book. They revealed something simple and practical to people with little or no education. The fact that we discuss these works today on an intellectual or historical level is indicative of the extent to which the true meaning and teachings of these sacred texts have been lost. 

These texts are in the public domain, free of copyright, and have been abused for centuries by individuals and factions who, under the banner of truth and righteousness, seek only to control. Nothing new here. They use sacred texts in the way drunks use lamposts; for support rather than illumination. 

If we scrape away the historical backgrounds, however, they have a lot in common on the spiritual side. There is not a lot of discussion about these similarities. My feeling is that this would be more interesting than the history. Nothing could lead us further from the combined spiritual message of these works than hypotheses about ancient history. Nothing could be further from the minds of the men in suits than spirituality.



> "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
> To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
> "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
> "That was the curious incident." remarked Sherlock Holme


Interesting quote, AA. Proof of absence is not absence of proof. Holmes heard the 'Sound of no dog barking' and was immediately enlightened.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Skinnyman:
Yes, you have valid insights, the least of which is confronting MacDoc. However, we must not be too harsh, perhaps it is the Lunar Effect. Here, Good MacDoc , is in kinder, gentler mood and he would appear to agree with you.

Kermit:
Valuable input, but I would like to see a caveat on the second paragraph. As an absolute statement, you would be discounting the many "saints" of all faiths who have laboured for mankind in the name of their faiths. Yes, the abuses are legion.

MacDoc and Kermit:
The Sherlock Holmes quote is one of the two most important logic statements ever made. The other is, rough quote, "when you have ruled out all the possiblities so that only the impossible remains, then the impossible must be the answer." Dangerous stuff.
Kermit is basically right in the application of the first quote. I used it to point out that I had not been referring to any spiritual point of view and yet I was attacked for that. Repeatedly, people were bringing up straw men issues that I had not said. I would also draw attention to how close to the surface that vitriol is in certain individuals and suggest that they really need to examine themselves. More was revealed about them than the subject.

And what is the subject at hand? Tough question, considering the number of people, claiming Philosophy courses, making the most elemental mistakes, unable to look at a statement such as the opening post and ascertain what area of philosophy it falls into. 

Here's my take, and I can be wrong, have been before, just show me. It's a question for social history. It highlights the conflict between checks and balances put on societies. 
To summarize: in order to prevent the abuses Kermit referred to, the government instituted some controls. However, the government itself needs to also have checks and balances so it doesn't get too authoritarian. History has shown us many examples of such strangling of society and has also shown that this area is the initial foray. And that the psuedo-intellectuals stand by or aid and abet until it's too late.
And this is why it's important: to put it crudely: those who fully endorse this removal, without more examination than this, are neo-fascist bookburners preparing the way for the new world order, Bush's or Kerry's.

But I'm sure that's nobody here, and I can be wrong.
(Probably going to get another post of purple microdots from MacDoc for this, or grapes of wrath, what were those thing anyway?)


----------

