Wesley "Ding" Elsberry puts foot in mouth
"Ding" wrote of a Florida bill,
"The folks pushing hardest for this are not generically for religion"? I thought that they were all supposed to be a bunch of fundy crackpots.
Why are "theistic evolution” and “evolutionary creationism”kosher while "intelligent design" is not? TE and EC are explicitly religious while ID is not. ID can be defined as the study of the extent to which things in nature appear to be intelligently designed rather than being products of blind chance.
Floridians should tell their representatives that there’s too little time and definitely too little money in our education system to spend any of either telling kids narrow sectarian religious antievolution lies. The folks pushing hardest for this are not generically for religion; they are for an exclusionary view that aims to undercut not just atheism and agnosticism, but also any Christian denomination that accepts “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism”.
"The folks pushing hardest for this are not generically for religion"? I thought that they were all supposed to be a bunch of fundy crackpots.
Why are "theistic evolution” and “evolutionary creationism”kosher while "intelligent design" is not? TE and EC are explicitly religious while ID is not. ID can be defined as the study of the extent to which things in nature appear to be intelligently designed rather than being products of blind chance.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/15/2011 10:50:00 AM
11 Comments:
>>>>>>"The folks pushing hardest for this are not generically for religion"? I thought that they were all supposed to be a bunch of fundy crackpots.<<<<<<
Which is what he wrote. Do you not understand what "generically" means? Hint: it's not the same as "generally"
>>>>>>Why are "theistic evolution” and “evolutionary creationism”kosher while "intelligent design" is not?<<<<<<
None of them (not even atheistic or agnostic evolution) are kosher to be taught in the classroom. Evolution, like all sciences, should be taught as a secular subject.
Good luck in your campaign to redefine ID.
>>>>> Do you not understand what "generically" means? Hint: it's not the same as "generally"<<<<<
Bozo,
Here is what my online dictionary says
Definition of GENERIC
1
a : relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class : general b : being or having a nonproprietary name c : having no particularly distinctive quality or application
2
: relating to or having the rank of a biological genus
— ge·ner·i·cal·ly \-i-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
— ge·ner·ic·ness noun
Origin of GENERIC
French générique, from Latin gener-, genus birth, kind, class
First Known Use: 1676
Related to GENERIC
Synonyms: across-the-board, blanket, broad-brush, common, general, global, overall, universal
===========================
>>>>Good luck in your campaign to redefine ID.<<<<
You don"t like my definition just because it distances ID from creatism
I mean"creationism," not"creatism"
Dude quotes a dictionary and still doesn't understand basic English. Try using a thesaurus instead: it lists antonyms (that's a fancy word for "words that mean the opposite of the word you're considering).
Wesley was saying that the folk pushing for this aren't for generic religion, but rather a specific religion (fundamentalism) that excludes other religious beliefs.
That is not what he said, bozo --you are just reading too much into his statement.
Rather than bickering about, you two, why not just ask the guy? When asked if Anonymous's interpretation was reasonable, Wesley said" Yep, that's about the size of it."
Anonymous wrote: Wesley was saying that the folk pushing for this aren't for generic religion, but rather a specific religion (fundamentalism) that excludes other religious beliefs.
Larry replied, "That is not what he said, bozo --you are just reading too much into his statement"
But it's clear that that's precisely what he meant by the sentence that follows. Can't you understand basic English?
>>>>>When asked if Anonymous's interpretation was reasonable, Wesley said" Yep, that's about the size of it." <<<<
That does NOT mean that the intended meaning of Wesley's stattement is clear.
Anonymous said--
>>>>Anonymous wrote: Wesley was saying that the folk pushing for this aren't for generic religion, but rather a specific religion (fundamentalism) that excludes other religious beliefs.
Larry replied, "That is not what he said, bozo --you are just reading too much into his statement"
But it's clear that that's precisely what he meant by the sentence that follows. Can't you understand basic English?<<<<<<<<
"Not generically for religion" is not the same as"not for generic religion." And there is no such thing as "generic religion"--- religion can be belief in one god, many gods, no god, "don'tknow " etc. Nonsense cannot be clarified, bozo
HOW IN HELL CAN ANYONE SAY THAT I CENSOR COMMENTS THAT DISAGREE WITH ME?
HOW IN HELL CAN ANYONE SAY THAT I CENSOR COMMENTS THAT DISAGREE WITH ME?
Post a Comment
<< Home