News Could the culture war become civil war?

[SOS2008]

Ignorance is Bliss... Why do they have to do it infront of our faces? I'm so insulted!

Ignorance only seems to be bliss, and it has been used throughout history to control the masses, particularly by organized religion. The thread on Bush endorsing ID is just one of many examples of how he and his cohorts have been working against science (e.g., stem cell research, global warming, etc.) and to misinform the citizenry via media manipulation and propaganda.

Let's just hope there will be enough people who will come to the realization of who Bush is, what he represents, along with the corruption and undermining of democracy in our country, and also feel insulted (if not embarrassed), and maybe even outraged.

 

[outsider]

SOS, I completely agree with what you are saying. How do we change a system which is so corrupted by those in power. We as individuals play for smaller machines that play for the bigger machines. To withdraw from the system is to withdraw from our roles, which will affect our livelihoods. It tends to be a never ending cycle that is unbreakable, and the government strategists know this. It seems as if the damned if you do and damned if you don't scenerio is ever sitting on my lap.

 

[Smurf]

The answer's simple, just get a sizable number of people to refuse to pay taxes.

 

[DM]

The answer's simple, just get a sizable number of people to refuse to pay taxes.

And get arrested

 

[outsider]

What if the sizeable number of individuals involved the police / authorities?

 

[Informal Logic]

There are many people who have been apathetic, but are becoming more aware and involved, as illustrated by the increase in voter turn out in 2004. The problem of propaganda remains, however. Grass roots movements can do wonders. If people can keep the pressure on the media, etc. so our country can refocus on real and important issues, hopefully the poor performance (even unethical behavior) of various incumbents will become glaringly obvious.

 

[DM]

What if the sizeable number of individuals involved the police / authorities?

That's a case to call it 'civil war'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The answer's simple, just get a sizable number of people to refuse to pay taxes.

And get arrested

Ironic that this is how the USA got started, isn't it?

 

[DM]

Ironic that this is how the USA got started, isn't it?

To avoid havoc? You can bet the US will do almost anything to stymie large protest activities.

 

[Smurf]

And get arrested

They can't arrest everyone. Besides it's not a huge offence in Canada, I immagine you Yanks would have a tougher time though.

That's a case to call it 'civil war'.

No, that just means the Authorities will refuse to pay taxes and refuse to arrest people who don't pay taxes either. The Government is subject to the PEOPLE, not the other way around. It's only a civil war if people start an armed rebellion and the military is used.

Ironic that this is how the USA got started, isn't it?

Exactly the point.

 

[DM]

They can't arrest everyone. Besides it's not a huge offence in Canada, I immagine you Yanks would have a tougher time though.

But doesn't taxes constitute a vital part in Canada's GDP?

No, that just means the Authorities will refuse to pay taxes and refuse to arrest people who don't pay taxes either. The Government is subject to the PEOPLE, not the other way around. It's only a civil war if people start an armed rebellion and the military is used.

Personally it would be a negative augury. Moreover if authorities initiate to participate in protests, and given the government ignores it, these protests have the potential to escalate into a civil war.

 

[Smurf]

But doesn't taxes constitute a vital part in Canada's GDP?

Taxes constitute a vital part of any countries GDP, that's why it's such a powerfull protest tool.

Personally it would be a negative augury. Moreover if authorities initiate to participate in protests, and given the government ignores it, these protests have the potential to escalate into a civil war.

1. The government won't ignore it.

2. If the government ignores it then... you no longer have to pay taxes... you win! and if you still want to protest you can find another way to do it. Just keep adding on pressure after pressure until the Government; a) ceases to exist, or more likely b) responds to your protests.

3. Why would it escalate into civil war? Organized tax evasion is still a long way from organized rebellion.

 

[DM]

Taxes constitute a vital part of any countries GDP, that's why it's such a powerfull protest tool.

Precisely why I find it peculiar for Canadians not to consider it as a considerable major offense.

1. The government won't ignore it.

One does incline to this view, partially I do too, but what happens when it's counter-productive? Doesn't the potentional for a civil war remain well bred?

2. If the government ignores it then... you no longer have to pay taxes... you win! and if you still want to protest you can find another way to do it. Just keep adding on pressure after pressure until the Government; a) ceases to exist, or more likely b) responds to your protests.

What I meant is if the government remains adamant and persists on demanding these taxes to be paid.

3. Why would it escalate into civil war? Organized tax evasion is still a long way from organized rebellion.

Merely because authorities are involved. It may be an insatisfactory response but in my view, if a country is devoid of authorities to calm tumultuous protests, and once again given the government ignores it and perpetuates to demand payments, this can only culminate in ramifications, thus an inevitable civil war.

 

[Smurf]

Precisely why I find it peculiar for Canadians not to consider it as a considerable major offense.

I think you'll find as a general trend that Canada isn't anywhere near as policed as the states, we are very lax by comparison in all our laws.

One does incline to this view, partially I do too, but what happens when it's counter-productive? Doesn't the potentional for a civil war remain well bred?

How does it become counter-productive? Give me an example.
I don't understand what you mean about civil war, how is this going to encourage civil war at all, let alone to a significant degree?

What I meant is if the government remains adamant and persists on demanding these taxes to be paid.

They already insist on having taxes paid, the question is one of enforcment, which is why you need a large number of people to do it, they can't enforce it everywhere forever. So they must either start killing people or give into the people's demand.

Merely because authorities are involved. It may be an insatisfactory response but in my view, if a country is devoid of authorities to calm tumultuous protests, and once again given the government ignores it and perpetuates to demand payments, this can only culminate in ramifications, thus an inevitable civil war.

Look at this scenario: 100,000 people in Washington refuse to pay any taxes at all. A spokes person comes forward and makes some demands before they will resume paying taxes. The next day 10,000 more people refuse to pay taxes. The federal government orders the arrest of the people organizing it. The Police refuse. Every day more people refuse to pay taxes.

Life continues, people go to work, people have babies and buy food. Only the government is cut out of the loop. What are they going to do? If a civil war starts it will be because the government tries to get the military to force them to stop, and that wouldn't work even in the USA, especially if the movement has that much support.

Also, there's a big difference between 'civil war' and a little bit of unrest with a few riots. BIG difference.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Merely because authorities are involved. It may be an insatisfactory response but in my view, if a country is devoid of authorities to calm tumultuous protests, and once again given the government ignores it and perpetuates to demand payments, this can only culminate in ramifications, thus an inevitable civil war.

Why do you talk of 'what if' scenarios when you have England itself as a good example?

You do remember Maggie Thatcher and the Poll tax don't you?

So many people didn't pay the taxes that the judicial system couldn't cope.

Eventually, the government was toppled.

Since then, there hasn't even been a hint of a return to government in the UK for the Conservative party ... even with Tony running around in Iraq.

 

[Smurf]

We should topple the liberal party. Maybe then they won't come back .

 

[DM]

How does it become counter-productive? Give me an example.
I don't understand what you mean about civil war, how is this going to encourage civil war at all, let alone to a significant degree?

Counter-productive in the sense of not heeding to the warnings and protests. Counter-productive in not ignoring but instead ignoring and demanding payments. How is a nation going to overthrow a government when the administration of this same government clashes against people's perceptions and remains defiant? I believe the nation is resorted to manifest its perceptions in a forceful manner.

Look at this scenario: 100,000 people in Washington refuse to pay any taxes at all. A spokes person comes forward and makes some demands before they will resume paying taxes. The next day 10,000 more people refuse to pay taxes. The federal government orders the arrest of the people organizing it. The Police refuse. Every day more people refuse to pay taxes.

If protests are patchy in the country, the accumulation of people attempting to negate government's arrests are not sufficient. The proportion needs to be bigger. If the government demands you to pay taxes and you fail to do so, the government can liquidate your business, legally remove items from your house or in the worst case scenario put you under arrest. Now in terms of protests, the size of people refusing to pay is what determines the government's actions towards tax avoidances. The latter is what leads me to believe that in order to negate government actions, a colossal size of people are required to create a civil war, granted that the government remains defiant in demanding tax payments, in order to overthrow its administration.

For a government to withdraw taxes is highly unrealistic, even with protests being present in the country. Scraping taxes would never, as far I speculate, occur. A possible remedy is to lower taxes but never scraping them.

Therefore for citizens of a nation to completely demand a tax scrap, a civil war, once again given the government remains adamant, is the only solution.

 

[DM]

Eventually, the government was toppled.

It toppled without a civil war. The government accepted defeat.

 

[Smurf]

Counter-productive in the sense of not heeding to the warnings and protests. Counter-productive in not ignoring but instead ignoring and demanding payments. How is a nation going to overthrow a government when the administration of this same government clashes against people's perceptions and remains defiant? I believe the nation is resorted to manifest its perceptions in a forceful manner.

Why? What liberal government would resort to force to stop protesters? What population of a (formerly) liberal nation would allow it?

If protests are patchy in the country, the accumulation of people attempting to negate government's arrests are not sufficient. The proportion needs to be bigger. If the government demands you to pay taxes and you fail to do so, the government can liquidate your business, legally remove items from your house or in the worst case scenario put you under arrest.

DM, you're not going to be able to put the government in a position where they can't respond. The idea is to put pressure on the government to realize that they can't maintain control of the country with their current course and thus, you force them to change.

Now in terms of protests, the size of people refusing to pay is what determines the government's actions towards tax avoidances. The latter is what leads me to believe that in order to negate government actions, a colossal size of people are required to create a civil war, granted that the government remains defiant in demanding tax payments, in order to overthrow its administration.

What exactly are you on about with 'demanding tax payments' they can demand all they want, it's expected. The whole point is that you refuse to do that in order to put pressure on the government. I don't understand the rest of this part.

For a government to withdraw taxes is highly unrealistic, even with protests being present in the country. Scraping taxes would never, as far I speculate, occur. A possible remedy is to lower taxes but never scraping them.

What's this about withdrawing taxes? You start paying taxes again once the government gives into your demands.

 

[Smurf]

It toppled without a civil war. The government accepted defeat.

..Yeah! That's the goal. Mission accomplished.

 

[DM]

What exactly are you on about with 'demanding tax payments' they can demand all they want, it's expected. The whole point is that you refuse to do that in order to put pressure on the government. I don't understand the rest of this part.

Not viable. You haven't considered my response to your supposition:

If the government demands you to pay taxes and you fail to do so, the government can liquidate your business, legally remove items from your house or in the worst case scenario put you under arrest.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Not viable. You haven't considered my response to your supposition:

As an individual, yes.

As an organized tax revolt, the government is only able to process in a civil manner.

Once the people exceed the capacity of the government to act through civil law for non-violent offenses ... ie. the courts are packed until there can be no other cases heard except for those of tax evasion and all the cells are filled with people who would not pay taxes (As happened in Scotland) the government must either accept defeat or declare the people enemies of the state and move to a government resembling the former USSR.

This is the point I tried to make on another thread regarding who it is that is in control. Do you work for your government or does your government work for you?

A government rules with the sufferance of the people.

 

[DM]

Once the people exceed the capacity of the government to act through civil law for non-violent offenses ... ie. the courts are packed until there can be no other cases heard except for those of tax evasion and all the cells are filled with people who would not pay taxes (As happened in Scotland) the government must either accept defeat or declare the people enemies of the state and move to a government resembling the former USSR.

Thanks for the explanation. I was unsure about the authenticity of cells becoming packed, but now that you cite Scotland, I'm able to assimilate your point.

 

[Smurf]

I have nothing to add to that. I don't believe it would even get to the point that it did in England today. The government would realize they can't put everyone in jail and find some other way to respond, possibly something we havn't considered yet.

 

[Smurf]

Thanks for the explanation. I was unsure about the authenticity of cells being packed, but now that you cite Scotland, I'm able to assimilate your point.

Unsure? They only have so many cells DM, where would they put everyone?

 

[DM]

Unsure? They only have so many cells DM, where would they put everyone?

I'm sorry Smurf, but I think it's you who's missing the point. I was not sure if prisons or cells could become "packed" due to tax avoidances. I always believed, until TSM cited Scotland and I naturally remembered, that citizens would always heed to government's demands when put in difficult circumstances. Like he said; "As an organized tax revolt, the government is only able to process in a civil manner."

 

[Smurf]

Ah. It's just like any protest really. If a single person walks into the street he gets dragged off by the cops. If 40 people march down the middle of the street the police block off roads to keep them safe.

 

[DM]

Ah. It's just like any protest really. If a single person walks into the street he gets dragged off by the cops. If 40 people march down the middle of the street the police block off roads to keep them safe.

It doesn't necessarily have to be an ambush. A simple visit by officers to your home or work place would be the civil manner to approach an individual who refuses to pay taxes.

 

[Smurf]

It doesn't necessarily have to be an ambush. A simple visit by officers to your home or work place would be the civil manner to approach an individual who refuses to pay taxes.

I don't see your point, that would obviously be their first course of action. But if an individual has decided not to pay taxes they'll probably be anticipating that and won't change their mind because of it. It does happen too, there was a woman in Alberta who refused to pay taxes, eventually got 6 months in prison, far as I know she still doesn't pay. Not sure if she's out now or not.

 

[DM]

I don't see your point, that would obviously be their first course of action. But if an individual has decided not to pay taxes they'll probably be anticipating that and won't change their mind because of it. It does happen too, there was a woman in Alberta who refused to pay taxes, eventually got 6 months in prison, far as I know she still doesn't pay. Not sure if she's out now or not.

Well at least here, officers approach citizens who refuse to pay taxes by knocking at their doors or waiting for them at their work place. I fail to understand why an ambush is the only appropriate way to reprimand and demand payments from an individual. Why do you think squatters are almost never caught? For it to be an ambush, the individual responsible for paying the tax needs to be qualified as a hideout citizen whom he or she deliberately conceals itself from authorities.

 

[Smurf]

Well at least here, officers approach citizens who refuse to pay taxes by knocking at their doors or waiting for them at their work place. I fail to understand why an ambush is the only appropriate way to reprimand and demand payments from an individual. Why do you think squatters are almost never caught? For it to be an ambush, the individual responsible for paying the tax needs to be qualified as a hideout citizen whom he or she deliberately conceals itself from authorities.

What do you mean by Ambush? And it doesn't really matter how the government attempts to respond, the entire protest relys on them not being able to stop it because they don't have the facilities to accommodate it.

 

[Antiphon]

[First, let me state up front that I don't know how this thread came to be
in this state. Maybe it was split off of another thread. I apologize if I throw it off track.]

Ignorance only seems to be bliss, and it has been used throughout history to control the masses, particularly by organized religion. The thread on Bush endorsing ID is just one of many examples of how he and his cohorts have been working against science (e.g., stem cell research, global warming, etc.) and to misinform the citizenry via media manipulation and propaganda.

Remember where you are. This is a physics forum so there is precious little
ignorance of science and biology on these pages.

Bush doesn't work against science. He works against the left-wing education
establishment which has excluded discussion of intelligent design on the basis of
separation of church and state, not because it's not an idea which students
shouldn't be exposed to.

I'm not fond of censorship of any academic topic, but when the left is trying
to do the censoring, as with this issue, I especially want it to be discussed in the classroom.

As politically conservative as I am, I am a hard-core evolutionist. I think
I could make a very strong case against intelligent design which is (in my
view) an untenable proposition. Conversely, there is currently no good
explanation from evolutionists for how one species becomes another.
No amount of natural selection will alter the number of chromosomes a
species has.

I am a conservative and I want students to hear this discussion.
You are a liberal and you want students to be shielded from this discussion.
A telling state of affairs, at least as far as your and my makeup goes.

Let's just hope there will be enough people who will come to the realization of who Bush is, what he represents, along with the corruption and undermining of democracy in our country, and also feel insulted (if not embarrassed), and maybe even outraged.

SOS2008, I'll bet my bottom dollar that you are drop-dead gorgeous.

You'd have to be- because A) no man with a spine would give you the
time of day based on the quality of your ideas alone, and B) you're not
bitter at all, so there must be at least one man (with a spine) in your life.

Care to disclose whether I'm right or not?


Edit: Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a
long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left
is so big on gun control- they need something to level the playing field.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well if there is a civil war, it only has 4 more months to happen if that one guys predictions of nuclear war in 2025 will come true :D

im waiting...

 

[Smurf]

uhhh pengwuino... it has 4 months and 20 years... It's only 2005.

 

[Pengwuino]

uhhh pengwuino... it has 4 months and 20 years... It's only 2005.

no no, his predictions were like... there were 5

One was that a mini-black hole woudl be created in a lab
The second one was that a civil war will occur in the US in either 2004 or 2005
.
.
.
3 more predictions...

Nuclear war in 2025. I think one was like a super flu virus that'll whipe out 1/2 of the worlds population.

 

[2CentsWorth]

There have been previous threads in which the right to bear arms, and to some extent to form militias, has been discussed though groups considered anti-government usually are disbanded fairly quickly in the US.

A civil war would be between groups, for example blue states versus red states. If against the government, it would be a revolution, no? I feel Americans got pretty upset about Terri Schiavo, and many were quite concerned about the 'nuclear option.' In other words, government intervention against the right to privacy, or a majority power grab toward a one party system are too much. If these kind of things are pushed too far, perhaps people would take to the streets. Then again, maybe Americans are too apathetic...

 

[Smurf]

There have been previous threads in which the right to bear arms, and to some extent to form militias, has been discussed though groups considered anti-government usually are disbanded fairly quickly in the US.

A civil war would be between groups, for example blue states versus red states. If against the government, it would be a revolution, no?

No, a civil war is usually government vs. rebels. If the rebels are successfull they might decide to call it a revolution afterwards, but whatever. If Blues states went to war with Red states the federal government would be backing one of them, and the other ones would be rebels. If the federal government didn't exist then there would have had to have been a previous revolution to get rid of it, otherwise the red/blue states never would have formed their own independant governments with standing armies.

But really, a Civil war is any Intra-state conflict.

Then again, maybe Americans are too apathetic...

There you go.

 

[Pengwuino]

There you go.

I was just thinking to myself about how I am too lazy to even respond to this thread...

 

[Rev Prez]

Hmm...the culture war turns into a civil war...then the libs have seriously geographically and http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf screwed the pooch.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

No, a civil war is usually government vs. rebels. If the rebels are successfull they might decide to call it a revolution afterwards, but whatever. If Blues states went to war with Red states the federal government would be backing one of them, and the other ones would be rebels.

At which point only one arm of the federal government matters, one that breaks 6 to 3 for Republicans every time.

Rev Prez

 

[Pengwuino]

Quickly nuke LA and NY and you got a huge advantage :D Thats the plan! Then take Area 51... there bound to have some sweet weapons there.

 

[SOS2008]

Remember where you are. This is a physics forum so there is precious little ignorance of science and biology on these pages.

Exactly -- please see the thread on Bush and endorsement of ID and you will see that PF members do not feel ID to be an "academic" topic, but rather to be religious. Therefore guidelines of separation of church and state apply, and has nothing to do with censorship (please see my most recent post in the thread on Bush and ID). “A telling state of affairs, at least as far as your and my makeup goes” indeed.

Bush doesn't work against science.

Right. Here is my post from the Bush [NOT] Honest & Trustworthy thread:

Here is an area of deceit that members in this forum should be very concerned about:

Is the Bush administration suppressing hard science on the environment to further its political agenda in policy areas like global warming? NOW's Michele Mitchell investigates allegations that a former energy industry lobbyist was rewriting scientific findings to support the political priorities of the White House. In the report, government insider Rick Piltz says that Philip Cooney, a lawyer and former energy industry lobbyist, was making changes to reports on behalf of the White House and that it was part of a pattern to downplay the effects of global warming. "The 'fox guarding the henhouse' aspect of it was so blatant," says Piltz. "You had somebody who was essentially an oil industry lobbyist, who now is the White House environment policy maven." The White House announced Cooney's resignation as chief staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality in June. http://www.pbs.org/now/thisweek/index.html

A petition drive aimed at publicizing perceived abuses in the administration's use and oversight of science by the environmental advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists has gathered the signatures of 6,000 scientists — including 49 Nobel laureates and 154 members of the U.S. National Academies of Science. In addition to the stir over the climate change reports, the administration is facing accusations that reports on the environmental effects of grazing on public lands were altered to support a proposed new policy. http://www.pbs.org/now/science/scienceandpolitics.html

In this evening's program, several scientists were interviewed, and the findings of all their studies not only were altered (not just edited), but completely changed to the opposite of what they submitted. All, including one scientist who has been a registered Republican all his adult life stated that the Bush administration is the worst ever seen in history for suppressing science.

No, not Bush!

…A) no man with a spine would give you the time of day based on the quality of your ideas alone, and B) you're not bitter at all, so there must be at least one man (with a spine) in your life.

A contradictory argument, but if you want to ask personal questions you should send a PM.

Edit: Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left is so big on gun control - they need something to level the playing field.

Yes, back to the topic (I asked Evo to split these posts from the thread on Bolton, because the discussion had strayed to a topic one could only guess about).

I mentioned previously that it would be interesting if the blue states could succeed and join Canada. Of course with the urban and/or coastal centers of commerce that would go with them, the rural red states would not be part of such a wealthy country—especially after global warming and the bread basket moving farther north…to Canada.

Seriously, I agree that examples of the Terri Schiavo intervention, or ‘nuclear option’ really reflect a culture clash in that both reflect fundamentalist versus more secular views. And as Smurf says, the government would be supportive of one or the other. With Frist abandoning Bush on stem cell research, Sanatorium abandoning Bush on ID, who knows where the chips would really fall. In the meantime, I hope you’re not suggesting I should upgrade my handgun to a semi automatic…?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

no no, his predictions were like... there were 5

One was that a mini-black hole woudl be created in a lab
The second one was that a civil war will occur in the US in either 2004 or 2005
.
.
.
3 more predictions...

Nuclear war in 2025. I think one was like a super flu virus that'll whipe out 1/2 of the worlds population.

I've been thinking about John Titor too. I don't really believe that he was a time traveler but the coincidences keep happening.
I actually read through all of his posts. His predictions...
2006: Americans will lose more and more civil liberties eventually resulting this year in multiple Wako Texas type incidents creating a deeper cultural/idealogical schism in the country.
2008: By this year the president will have delcared martial law and forgo the election reasoning a nation wide state of emergency. This will further fuel civil unrest pushing the US closer to all out civil war.

After that I don't quite remember exactyly what he said. There is supposed to be extreme escalation of violence in the Middle East at some point resulting in a third world war which leads to nuclear attacks.

Pretty generic end time story really. He said all this before Bush was elected and obviously then before 9/11. I don't remember seeing it in there myself but he supposedly made some referance to terrorism airplanes and buildings aswell. I do though remember that he said around this time there would be an extreme increase in terrorism. I think he mentioned US interferance in the Middle East but not an actual war I don't think.
Oh and yes I think he did mention a black hole being created by a particular lab which apearantly did happen just recently.
I need to reread his posts.

At any rate there you have a rather brief summery of how civil disobedience can result in civil war. You need to remember that even as of now this country is divided idealogically and probably only a very small fraction would have the guts to tell the government off. When a certain number of people become rebelious enough to warrant attention they will go after groups of people that are high profile to make an example of them (see "Wako Texas type incidents").

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah that black hole one was really a weird one for me! But was the creation of the black hole something that had been planned for a while or did they just decide to try it spur of the moment? Its not very extraordinary if they were announccing they were buildin gsomething that will attempt to create a mini-black hole years before they actually did it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm pretty sure that it was announced before hand. I can't quite see someone deciding "hey I think I'll try making a black hole today".

---edit---
Actually now that I think about it it may have been an unexpected event. Though someone out there may have thought it possible for such a thing to occur. Pretty much most people didn't think it was possible. One of the ways that Titor was debunked was through a physicist who stated that it was impossible to create and contain a miniture black hole since this was supposedly one of the parts of his time machine.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well... 4 more months until big war :D Things better hurry up because i sure as hell don't see a civil war popping up anytime soon.

 

[pattylou]

Conversely, there is currently no good
explanation from evolutionists for how one species becomes another.
No amount of natural selection will alter the number of chromosomes a
species has.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong.

Example, bacteria can have multiple genetic units (chromosomes and plasmids of varying numbers.) It is very easy, and observable, to either induce the plasmid to incorporate into the chromosome (presumably even easy to make it so it can't get out again) or to alter the number of plasmids that a strain carries.

There is an example of two closely related species (I forget which but they are mammals) where one chromosome in one species (with the centromere in the middle) is clearly two chromosomes (each with a centromere on the end) in the other species.

I am a conservative and I want students to hear this discussion.
You are a liberal and you want students to be shielded from this discussion.
A telling state of affairs, at least as far as your and my makeup goes.

I can't speak for SOS, but I am an educator, who happened to believe in ID for a very long time. I oppose introducing ID into a science classroom because to promote it as *science* is to *undermine* all the work we do in teaching what science *is!*

Science makes testable predictions, for one thing. But start teaching intelligent design as science, and suddenly science doesn't *have* to have testable predictions any more.

Does this seem like a problem to you, when you consider how it might affect other areas of science and policy-making?

Teach it in a non-science class. I don't find it threatening, as an idea, but it ain't science and science education should be what it says - science education.

Edit: Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a
long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left
is so big on gun control- they need something to level the playing field.

So, you're saying that the idea that people like you (religious) shooting us, murdering us, is a valid concern ("level the playing field")?

 

[loseyourname]

I can't speak for SOS, but I am an educator, who happened to believe in ID for a very long time. I oppose introducing ID into a science classroom because to promote it as *science* is to *undermine* all the work we do in teaching what science *is!*

Science makes testable predictions, for one thing. But start teaching intelligent design as science, and suddenly science doesn't *have* to have testable predictions any more.

You know, it does seem to me that a lot of the issues brought up by the IDers as to how complex subcellular systems evolve is an important topic that should be discussed. What doesn't belong in a science class is the hypothesis that they were created by divine intervention, as that simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

 

[pattylou]

You know, it does seem to me that a lot of the issues brought up by the IDers as to how complex subcellular systems evolve is an important topic that should be discussed. What doesn't belong in a science class is the hypothesis that they were created by divine intervention, as that simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

Saw a good analogy on the "evolution" of the camera not too long ago. I'll try to find the original.

The few things I recall were:

The camera started as not much more than a pinprick through which light transmits an image (think of the pinprick box you can use to observe a solar eclipse.)

You add film. Then a shutter.

Then you add a lens.

Then you add the next bit, maybe a hardier casing, and modify an earlier bit.

Then you have Nikon developing one set of components and Minolta developing a different set, and NIkon might have an additional gizmo that Minolta does have and vice versa.

Presently, we have automatic film advance, digital, zoom, visual effects - many many modifications to the pinprick that we started with.
~~~~~~~

If you take your camera, and remove one part, it won't work properly. This is patently not evidence that it didn't develop in a stepwise fashion. (We know the camera developed in a stepwise fashion!) The eye is often used as an example of something that couldn't have evolved, "because remove one part and it doesn't work. Thus, there must be a supreme being." The argument is (how did someone else phrase it?) ...torturous to follow.

And it doesn't even get into the idea that lenses (or pick the component of your choice) may have evolved (been developed) for a different reason entirely, and then co-opted byt the visual system.

 

[loseyourname]

If you take your camera, and remove one part, it won't work properly. This is patently not evidence that it didn't develop in a stepwise fashion. (We know the camera developed in a stepwise fashion!) The eye is often used as an example of something that couldn't have evolved, "because remove one part and it doesn't work. Thus, there must be a supreme being." The argument is (how did someone else phrase it?) ...torturous to follow.

Something like this:

Irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved from simpler systems.
Therefore, they must have been created.

Actually, when I think ID, though, I think Michael Behe, but at least isn't stupid enough to claim that the eye cannot be reduced. I think two of his claims (I can hardly remember at this point) are blood clotting and flagella. The thing is, he actually seems to present a fairly compelling case when you only read his side of it. Fortunately, I was introduced to his work through another man, Kenneth Miller, that makes counterarguments to his claim, giving examples of simplified versions of the systems that Behe claims to be 'irreducibly complex.' (Ironically, Miller does this as part of a book that goes on to use physics to argue for God - I initially read it as part of a presentation I was giving on making counterarguments to these arguments from aspects of physics.) I have to admit that following their debate really increased my knowledge of subcellular evolution, something that does not receive much coverage in biology classes.

And it doesn't even get into the idea that lenses (or pick the component of your choice) may have evolved (been developed) for a different reason entirely, and then co-opted byt the visual system.

Have you ever read any of Richard Dawkins publications? He does the most wonderful job of debunking all these design claims. The quality of his arguments tends to lag when he moves outside of science (although Dan Dennett does a great job of picking up for him in some of his work), but he has to be the one science writer I most enjoy reading. Either he or E.O. Wilson.