Answers to prayers?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Let's wait and see. 

As others have said, I am sorry to hear that you feel depressed at the moment. I hope you feel better soon. Also, if you feel low for a while I wouldn't hesitate to talk to someone experienced in the field. I did and don't regret it for a moment.

To echo and build on the comments of bhs has already made though I am interested in why you say "let's wait and see". Either things will turn out for the better or they won't, surely that is sufficient for you to already form a view on what conclusions you will draw?

[Spud]

Spud,

First of all, evolution is a part of science and therefore discussion of aerodynamics, bird flight, the anatomy of a wing and its evolutionary origins would be part of science lessons. Within that format, it might be quite sensible and appropriate to refer to such things as punctuated equilibrium or  aspects of Lamarckism. Questioning should of course be encouraged, and evidence and argument should be presented.

However, the idea that birds were simply created(presumably by some sort of 'god') would be an adulteration of any science lesson as this would not involve any scientific approach whatever. The only way in which it could be presented within a science lesson, I suggest, would be to discuss how people approached such questions in the absence or ignorance of scientific knowledge.

The proper place to approach such subjects in this way, however, would be within Religious Education lessons which should, of course, deal with a whole range of religions and religious ideas, and where questioning should,  indeed,  be the order of the day.

As long as attention is drawn to the questions about bird flight which evolution theory has not yet answered, then you will have honest education. But to teach as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs would be dishonest, imo, and I'd suggest that looking at the facts from an intelligent design perspective would be the honest way to balance the uncertainty of evolution theory - at least there is then another authority to turn to when science fails to answer the questions. Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.

I am open to evolution over millions of years, by the way, but I don't see enough evidence to say yes that is the answer. Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over; I can see the same thing happening with Brexit.

[ippy]

As long as attention is drawn to the questions about bird flight which evolution theory has not yet answered, then you will have honest education. But to teach as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs would be dishonest, imo, and I'd suggest that looking at the facts from an intelligent design perspective would be the honest way to balance the uncertainty of evolution theory - at least there is then another authority to turn to when science fails to answer the questions. Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.

I am open to evolution over millions of years, by the way, but I don't see enough evidence to say yes that is the answer. Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over; I can see the same thing happening with Brexit.

I really didn't think there was anyone on the forum more ignorant about evolution than - tw-it, well done spud.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

As long as attention is drawn to the questions about bird flight which evolution theory has not yet answered, then you will have honest education.

Not true. There's a very good fossil record for evidence and the physics is well-understood too.

But to teach as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs would be dishonest, imo,...

Then your opinion is wrong because that's exactly what the evidence tells us. Some palaeontologists would go as far as to say that in some respects modern birds are dinosaurs.

... and I'd suggest that looking at the facts from an intelligent design perspective would be the honest way to balance the uncertainty of evolution theory -

Then you'd suggest wrongly because there is no uncertainty of the type you describe, and because "intelligent" design offers no testable hypotheses of its own to consider. It's just religious faith, which is why it has no place in science classes.

...at least there is then another authority to turn to...

Just guessing about something isn't an "authority".

...when science fails to answer the questions.

When science fails to answer something that just leaves a "don't know". For another explanation to be considered requires a method to test the claim, which is why ID falls at the first hurdle.

Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.

Actually it asserts rather than addresses, and it offers lots of speculations about that of which your particular god is just one.

I am open to evolution over millions of years, by the way, but I don't see enough evidence to say yes that is the answer. Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over; I can see the same thing happening with Brexit.

Then you're not looking hard enough.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over....

Fighting for equality is always worth it.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Dear BHS,

Have you seen Hope around recently? He doesn't seem to be around to address the questions put to him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Stephen,

Have you seen Hope around recently? He doesn't seem to be around to address the questions put to him.

Nope, but nor do I expect to for a bit. The Hope playbook goes something like:

1. Make some logically bad arguments.

2. Be corrected on them.

3. Ignore the corrections for a while.

4. Reappear later on to claim that you've addressed the corrections even though no-one can find where you did that.

5. Repeat Step 1.

And so it goes 

[Brownie]

Without checking, I am sure Hope was posting on the forum last night.  Depending on what else he has to do, he'll probably be back on tonight or tomorrow.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Without checking, I am sure Hope was posting on the forum last night.  Depending on what else he has to do, he'll probably be back on tonight or tomorrow.

Do you not find it strange that he doesn't seem to want to address the questions asked?

Or do you think he will do that tonight or tomorrow?

[Enki]

As long as attention is drawn to the questions about bird flight which evolution theory has not yet answered, then you will have honest education. But to teach as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs would be dishonest, imo, and I'd suggest that looking at the facts from an intelligent design perspective would be the honest way to balance the uncertainty of evolution theory - at least there is then another authority to turn to when science fails to answer the questions. Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.

I am open to evolution over millions of years, by the way, but I don't see enough evidence to say yes that is the answer. Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over; I can see the same thing happening with Brexit.

Spud,

There are at least two main reasons given for the origins of bird flight, both evolutionary in nature, which could certainly be discussed honestly within a science lesson. As far as I know there is no scientific non evolutionary reason for bird flight.

The general and overwhelming scientific consensus as to the evolution of birds is that they evolved from a group of dinosaurs in the Mesozoic era, for which there is a great deal of fossil evidence. It is also true that a few scientists still hold to the opinion that birds evolved from other types of reptiles. Again, I don't see this as a problem at all. The scientific merits and evidence for both sides can be discussed and debated quite properly within a science lesson.

Your idea however that the idea of evolution is uncertain is not one held by science and hence is not really a valid area for a science lesson. Furthermore, it would be entirely dishonest to discuss intelligent design within a science lesson because there is no scientific evidence at all which can ascertain this and therefore give it any authoritative basis whatever. It is purely surmise, usually backed by certain religious ideas, which have no place at all within science lessons.

Now, if you would wish to introduce discussion and debate on whether there is such a thing as 'intelligent design' within an RE lesson, I have no problem, as long as a broad range of religious ideas are also given due airing, and as long as the teacher does not seek, in any way, to influence or direct the student towards any particular religious or non religious standpoint.

[Gordon]

Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.

Your confirmation bias is getting in the way of your ability to reason, again.

[Brownie]

Do you not find it strange that he doesn't seem to want to address the questions asked?

I have no idea what Hope wants.

Or do you think he will do that tonight or tomorrow?

You'll have to ask him  .

[Spud]

Fighting for equality is always worth it.

Homosexuals already had equality, because they have always been permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex. The assertion that they did not have equality is based on the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the opposite sex.

[Spud]

Spud,

There are at least two main reasons given for the origins of bird flight, both evolutionary in nature, which could certainly be discussed honestly within a science lesson. As far as I know there is no scientific non evolutionary reason for bird flight.

Is it known how feathers, which have a complex structure and grow out of individual follicles and are shed individually, could have formed from simple-structured reptilian scales, which are folds of skin and are shed en mass in sheets? Until it is, then no, there is no evolutionary explanation for bird flight.

[Nearly Sane]

Homosexuals already had equality, because they have always been permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex. The assertion that they did not have equality is based on the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the opposite sex.

No, it's based on the actual fact of loving the person they do.

(much edited to remove some words that might have been modded)

[Owlswing]

No, it's based on the actual fact of loving the person they do.

(much edited to remove some words that might have been modded)

NS

Your ability to remain calm in the face of severe provocation is to be loudly applauded!

[Gordon]

Is it known how feathers, which have a complex structure and grow out of individual follicles and are shed individually, could have formed from simple-structured reptilian scales, which are folds of skin and are shed en mass in sheets? Until it is, then no, there is no evolutionary explanation for bird flight.

What to evolutionary biologists say on this matter, Spud: scientists that is, who have published their work in academic science journals?

[Owlswing]

What to evolutionary biologists say on this matter, Spud: scientists that is, who have published their work in academic science journals?

Come on Gordon! Such learned men and learned journals have no credibility when stacked against the unquestionable authority of the Bible.

Surely you are aware of this - shame on you for questioning Spud's Biblical authority. Go and stand in the Naughty Corner for the next 50 years!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Homosexuals already had equality, because they have always been permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex. The assertion that they did not have equality is based on the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the opposite sex.

Equality means enjoying the same rights as everyone else regardless of sexual orientation as it actually is, not conditional on sexual orientation as you'd prefer it to be.

[Enki]

Is it known how feathers, which have a complex structure and grow out of individual follicles and are shed individually, could have formed from simple-structured reptilian scales, which are folds of skin and are shed en mass in sheets? Until it is, then no, there is no evolutionary explanation for bird flight.

I think that you are confusing the evolutionary explanations for bird flight, which I assumed you were talking about, with the evolutionary explanation for how feathers developed. There is overwhelming fossil evidence that feathers were present in certain early dinosaurs. The only question is how did they develop. I suggest that your idea that feathers developed from scales is only one suggestion. Why not expand your knowledge and see what reputable scientists have to say on the matter?

I repeat,  "As far as I know there is no scientific non evolutionary reason for bird flight."

[wigginhall]

I think there are feathered flightless dinosaurs, suggesting an insulation function.   Oh really, when ID people start talking about the inadequacies of evolution, I have to laugh.   This is trash talk.

I was thinking about convergence in relation to flight, e.g. birds, insects, bats.   Oh I forgot God done it.

[Enki]

Homosexuals already had equality, because they have always been permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex. The assertion that they did not have equality is based on the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the opposite sex.

Really.

Let me turn it round for you:

Homosexuals didn't have equality, because they were not permitted to marry someone of the same sex. The assertion that they did have equality is based upon the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the same sex.

[Owlswing]

Really.

Let me turn it round for you:

Homosexuals didn't have equality, because they were not permitted to marry someone of the same sex. The assertion that they did have equality is based upon the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the same sex.

Can I make a suggestion?

Go to Jerusalem and tell it to the Wailing Wall; you will get a far more intelligent and well thought out response.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just had some very good news re my daughter's exam grades. Which god should I thank I wonder? The Christian one talks a good story but there's some pretty iffy stuff in His early works in particular, and I'm not feeling it for the Muslim one. Some of the Norse gods are quite funky, ditto the Roman ones. I'm quite drawn to the Egyptian goddess Taweret too - the body of a pregnant woman, the head of a hippopotamus, the tail of a crocodile, and the arms and legs of a lion. Cool eh?

Any help gratefully received please.

Of course, I could always credit my daughter what with staying up 'til midnight working these past two years but hey, gods are so much more thrilling don't you think?

[Brownie]

I wonder if anyone else saw the programme, "Just call me Martina", on BBC1 a few nights ago (and I note it is repeated tonight at 11.40pm)?

Martina Navratilova married her partner of six years about eighteen months ago.  In the programme she talked about the prejudice she had faced when she was a young tennis player, all the adverse publicity and how some felt she wasn't a person you would allow to be around your daughters because she was a "pervert".

I was extremely moved by the programme because I remember very well how people talked about her, maybe thirty five years ago, calling her "ugly" and "a man".  Yet she did nothing wrong, no-one knew anything about her private life then, she was young and seemed pleasant and gracious.  I always admired her and found the remarks very unpleasant, they made me feel uncomfortable.  Goodness knows how uncomfortable they made her feel!

She is a strong woman but admitted to how hurt she was at that time.   She talked about being married and how important it was for her and her partner to be married, said it was so good, a relief, to be able to say, "I'm me, this is how I am.  I'm married like everyone else".   The legalisation of gay marriage was certainly a milestone (it is not legal in every state of America, Martina married in New York but could not have married in Florida, where they live).

Hearing Martina talk about what it meant to her brought it home to me how ridiculous, cruel even, society has been for years discriminating against gay couples like her and her partner.  Using religion to back up personal prejudices is risible,  the same old is routinely trotted out.  Thankfully there are many people of faith who do not interpret the Bible so literally and feel quite differently;  there are also those who are beginning to change their minds which isn't easy after years of being entrenched in a way of thinking.  It takes courage to step out from the secure walls they've relied on for so long but it's happening.

It was a heartening programme.

(Naturally for me, afterwards, I thought, "I hope it lasts"  , but I would have thought that about a heterosexual couple getting married.)

(Pleased to hear about your daughter's exam grades bluehillside, excellent news.)