packsaddle

Hi Judy, Hope your New Year includes modest, possible resolutions. And no hangovers (I did sleep late though). We actually created a backpacking breakfast menu called 'missing links' - contains no sausage. Why do I always return to food....? For everyone, I just found this: http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1135248153247780.xml&coll=1 Looks like a couple ID supporters have a chance to cool their heels behind bars. Moral: "Thou shalt not bear false witness." ...at least in court. Happy New Year everyone!

I am responsible for the 'good guys' terminology. I used it to catch the interest of the forum and it did. I also used it because in the subject legal battle, the winning side didn't resort to lies and deception. I suppose that by elimination some would think that I am indicating that persons on the other side are the 'bad guys'. There definitely are bad guys involved but they are the ones who were engaged in the deception. Others who honestly believe that religion should be taught in science classes, and who state their view in honest, clear terms are NOT bad guys. I disagree with them but as long as they are honest about their arguments I do not consider them to be bad guys, only mistaken. THEY are also winners in this case, they simply may not know it. The power of this court case is that the forces of deception were exposed to be just what they are and they were, so-to-speak, handed their own heads on a platter by the court. Good. However, there are plenty more of them where they came from and this fight is not over yet. The forces of honesty and integrity (the good guys) can still lose other battles and we must be vigilant to make sure that doesn't happen. As I remember, someone (I think it was BrentAllen) was asking for proof of various things. Please refer to a much earlier post which answered this explaining that the concept of 'proof' is something that only really happens in the field of mathematics. In science, the process treats new ideas as hypotheses if they are available for experimental test. The outcomes of such tests are several. Test results can cause the idea to be rejected. If the idea can't be tested, it is set aside until tests are found. If a test is applied, failure to reject leads to tentative acceptance, pending further tests. Proof is, to my knowledge, never attained but in certain cases (such as motion of the earth and planets) rejection is considered quite unlikely. Nothing based in faith can be treated in this manner. If it is incapable of being tested then it simply isn't considered seriously by science. There are plenty of seemingly good ideas that actually had some empirical evidence for their basis...that were subsequently rejected by experimental test (remember cold fusion?). Nothing supernatural can be examined in this manner and ideas based in faith therefore cannot be science. Science does not say these faith-based ideas are wrong, only that they are not scientific and cannot be addressed as such. There have been comments in this forum in which persons of faith have interpreted this in terms of science saying they are wrong. This is incorrect. Science is merely saying the ideas are outside the realm of science. And should not be taught in a science class. Comments have also been made as to the source of variation. The only good response I can think of is to note that many mutations are not actually random and can be induced artificially, either by chemical or radiological means. But a thorough treatment of the subject requires, at the very least, a college-level knowledge of genetics and the huge literature regarding sources of variation. There was a nice little book long ago by Harold Blum called "Time's Arrow and Evolution". It dates to 1968 but he nicely summarizes how selective forces essentially 'filter' genetic variation, producing whatever outcome. Evolution is something that we must accept because after many decades of tests, we have failed to find a test that has ever given us reason to reject it. That doesn't make evolution good, however, and that value judgement is one that all of us are qualified to make. Evolution has no 'intent', no sense of direction or morality. Evolutionary forces don't care about feelings, justice, ethics, economics, or life. Evolutionary forces are unthinking and selection works best when it works prior to reproduction. For humans, such forces therefore operate best on children and we owe most of our innate immunities to disease to the fact that countless children lacking such immune capabilities died young from those diseases over thousands or millions of years. We should remember this every time we see children at risk. Social programs (or lack thereof), economic and medical systems, etc. that allow children and young people to fail in life are, in fact, part of the selective forces that we exert on ourselves. Every decision we make that affects a child is one of the many selective forces acting on them. We know this intuitively and this is the gamble we make when we choose, for example, to home school rather than place them in public or private schools. And,to me, this is where scouting should find its greatest benefit, making opportunities for growth available to all boys equally. However, exclusion of gays and atheists is to acknowledge Darwinian principles and consitutes an application of an intentional selective force. Like that twist? Start a new thread.

Firstpusk addressed the comments nicely. A couple of additions: The court identified ID as an attempt by biblical creationists to insert their religious beliefs into science curricula. The use of 'intelligent design' as a term to mask the true intent was (and is) a deception designed to 'get around' a legal obstacle placed in their path by a previous court ruling. Claims to the contrary after this ruling have the ring of dishonesty. However, I also disagree with Firstpusk's final assessment of heads on platters. My observations are that scientists are rather inept politically and tend toward surprise when the arena of politics treats them to, well, politics. The ID promoters that I have observed are very adept politically and very effectively use the mechanisms of politics to keep their interests very alive. The next iteration of this conflict has already begun and 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' are being shunned in the discourse. They know this battle was lost and the next tactic is to insert yet a new wording into curriculum standards that allow religion to be inserted aside science. Here's how: Two words (there may be other versions as well) are being promoted for inclusion for biology standards, usually only those standards that have to do with topics of genetics and evolution. In these curriculum standards, the effort is to insert wording that requires 'critical analysis' of the topics of the standard. The stated intent is to allow critical analysis of whatever scientific topic is the subject of the standard. To the person who has not previously experienced this tactic, this seems quite reasonable because critical analysis is indeed the process that produced the subject material in the first place. However, my observations are that the subject wording is only being promoted for biology and no other field of science. Moreover, the wording is only promoted for those subjects of biology that had previously been targeted for inclusion of ID. Delete creationism, insert ID...delete ID, insert 'critically analyze'. If, as an earlier post suggested, one pulls back the curtain of deceit and investigates the underlying motives as well as the persons responsible for the strategy, you will again find the same persons that support ID and creationism. And the stated purpose of the new wording is not simply to promote critical thought, but to allow a venue for alternative ideas (including religious ones) to be presented as critical of the scientific views and with equal scientific weight in the classroom. This approach might actually be welcome in the classroom and at my institution the courses that address evolution employ this to advantage. An example: A study done for college-level students in which this was actually adopted involved 103 freshman biology majors at Central Washington University. They were divided into four sections and taught in a quite different manner. Two sections were presented with both "Icons of Evolution" (a book promoting ID) and Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" as part of the course. The other two sections were merely taught the conventional biology course reading "The Red Queen" about evolution of sex and human nature. In the sections that read both an evolutionary text as well as the ID text, 61% of the students indicated a change of mind regarding their beliefs. The vast majority of change was in the direction of evolutionary thought. The other two sections only had 21% changes of mind, again mostly in favor of evolution. Of the small number of self-proclaimed biblical literalists in the course, 4 out of 6 moved in the 'rationalist' direction. This suggests that if done carefully, college students tend to be susceptible to rational thought and this type of critical analysis will actually hurt, rather than help, the creationist's side. The study noted, however, that high school students may not be as prepared to respond to this approach and the study therefore cannot be used to predict the outcome in a high school biology class. Nevertheless, the new wording is again being promoted for no other field of science than biology. If this critical analysis is needed in the science classroom, why not for physics and chemistry as well? One answer is that the fundamentalists have given up in those fields but not in biology. And the deception is perpetuated. Scoutndad, the true origin of life is not necessary to be known in order to address subsequent changes scientifically. Science acknowledges, no, it revels in unknown things like the origin of life. As observational and experimental methods expand, many questions like that one are being answered. The mechanism of the origin of life may not be provable post facto. But the possible mechanisms may well have been identified already, just waiting for experimental test. If you haven't read it already, the book by Christian DeDuve, "Vital Dust", http://www.thymos.com/mind/deduve.html gives the most comprehensive objective depiction I have read of these possibilities recently. The book is a few years old now so much has been done to fill in some of the gaps but it is still a landmark for having synthesized so many diverse pieces of the puzzle. As for scientific fraud, it does happen unfortunately. But the beauty of experimental science is that the observations must be capable of being independently duplicated. This is just one more step in true critical analysis... and the fraud, if it is important enough to warrant attention, will always be detected. Science tolerates mistakes but not deceit. Another one of the reasons ID and science don't mix. That scientist is no longer a scientist but a liar and he will never again be accepted by the scientific arena. The scientific fraud should practice asking, "Would you like fries with your order?" In religion, after the frauds have served their time, they just start another TV show - they just loot fewer people each successive time around.

OGE, to answer your question natural selection is the process by which populations change gene frequencies. It is the mechanism by which populations evolve. Strictly speaking, the change in the gene frequency IS evolution. The phenomenon that some are concerned about is 'speciation', a different but related matter. There are contemporary examples of speciation and here is a link to some of those examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html Some persons who can't accept these facts can take the discussion to a different level including the definition of 'species'. Fair enough, scientists debate this as well. The crucial difference is that when confronted with objective evidence and rational thought to the contrary, a scientist will either be persuaded to reject a hypothesis or else produce better objective evidence in response. Edited part: typo, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Rooster7, Regarding ID supporters and their view of science: They ARE either engaging in a deception, or they are ignorant of science, or both. Most of the ID supporters with whom I am currently involved have explicitly stated their ignorance of both science and evolution. Your statement regarding evolution being more religion than science indicates ignorance of both evolution AND science. I am glad that you welcome enlightenment. If you believe God is the intelligent designer then perhaps you can answer why other ID supporters use the term 'intelligent designer' rather than simply acknowledging God? I see this is part of the deception (so did the court) as well as a refusal to acknowledge God. The so-called "Big Bang" is a fairly recent model of the universe (1927) whose characteristics contain predictions that could be tested. Incidentally it was originated by a Catholic priest. The "Big Bang" idea was one of several competing models regarding the nature of the universe...one notable competitor was the steady-state model (Hoyle). As empirical evidence has gathered, the "Big Bang" model has been tested and unrejected while the steady-state model has not been supported by that same evidence. This is called 'science'. Giving short shrift here, the evidence was gathered through direct observations of motions of galaxies and through the collective application of principles of Doppler shift and a lucky set of observations made by Penzias and Wilson in 1964 regarding microwave radiation. There are still supporters of the steady-state model and in the classroom it is fair to teach that both models continue to be debated and that both are subject to objective test. Biblical creation, having no objective predictive capacity whatsoever and being untestable, would be inappropriate for inclusion along with the other models of the universe. The same philosophy applies to biology. To my knowledge, ID supporters do not ask for ID wording to be applied to subjects of physics or astronomy, but only to biology. Honest support of ID would, in fact, cause its inclusion in the curricula for phyiscs and astronomy. For that matter, honest support for ID would place it in all science classes regardless of field. But that never happens. The only thing in the process that could be represented as an act of faith is the underlying working assumption of all science that observable phenomena have rational explanations. Because what happened prior to the "Big Bang" is thus far unpredicted or at least unobservable, one can do little more than speculate on what caused it. To my knowledge the 'cause' of the "Big Bang" is not taught in public school science classes.

Back to earth, perhaps to stay now. Hi GopherJudy, nice to hear from you again. I am involved locally with another of these attempts to corrupt science curricula in the public schools. There is a pattern to these attempts and the more the attempts are made, the clearer the pattern becomes. As the decision pointed out, modern fundamentalism originated in reaction to Darwin's theory. Fundamentalism essentially views science as an anti-religion force but having capitulated in the physical sciences, fundamentalism clings to its declining ground in the field of biology. I understand how easy it is to have that view if one does not understand the philosophy of science. However, one pattern that I have noticed locally is a constant and explicit desire by those supporting ID not to discuss philosophy. Indeed, they are clear in their statements that philosophy should be kept out of the schools. This has puzzled me because philosophy is the place where the difference actually occurs. Why not address the problem at that level? One answer is that having linked fundamentalism to the conflict, the conflict must thereby be maintained. "Teach the controversy." But in the end, the essence of ID is quite simple. ID states that certain phenomena are so complex, irreducibly complex, and beyond our understanding that their existence must have come about as a result of some kind of intelligence...the intelligent designer. The problem with this is (as with rainbows, the aurora, and the apparent motions of celestial objects) as we gain sufficient understanding, our ignorance is diminished and most of us no longer embrace such ideas as geocentrism. This has also happened in the field of biology, Theodoric of York not withstanding (nice touch, Merlyn). As our knowledge and understanding of biological structures and processes increased, we abandoned or discredited certain ideas (such as the genetic ideas of T.D. Lysenko). But ID, based on a doctrine of 'irreducible complexity', at one time also would have been applied to the rainbow, the aurora, or the apparent motions of celestial objects. As our knowledge and understanding grew, our ignorance declined and we are now able to explain these phenomena to the satisfaction of most critics. ID essentially derives its strength from ignorance and ID's strength increases with increased ignorance. It is possible that ID supporters recognize their dependence on ignorance and fear the inescapable extension to faith in general. Indeed, this may be the genesis (pun intended) of the idea that science conflicts with religion. [My wife at this point in the argument is fond of observing that if all those persons who reject science for religion would also simply reject all medical advances resulting from science, this would shortly be no problem at all.] Theodoric of York is waiting for all of them. But the apparent conflict between science and religion is in the mind of the fundamentalist for the most part, not in the mind of persons who understand science. Science is unable to address the supernatural and therefore cannot address religion either positively or negatively. Not all ID supporters are liars and engaged in a deception. But some are and some of them were discovered in the testimony in the Dover trial. Some others of them are now making political moves locally to circumvent that decision by merely using terminology such as 'critical analysis' and 'alternative theories' in writing new curriculum standards. The lie is apparent and another court case may yet occur as a result. Science has nothing to fear from ID. ID is untestable and strengthened by ignorance. It is a nearly perfect confidence scheme. Science is designed to reject such things and can survive (and has) much greater threats. The attack may seem to be on science but science will survive nicely. The real threat is to science education for our children. Knowledge through ignorance will hardly make them ready to compete in a world where elsewhere real science occurs in science curricula. As another poster observed, looking behind the curtain makes it clear who is to gain from ID's success. And it has virtually nothing to do with good science education. There is another problem for the faithful, however. I challenge all persons on this forum to come forward and state who or what the intelligent designer is, if it is not God. There are two risks in meeting this challenge: First, if you think another intelligent designer exists, you explicitly deny God and his power over existence. Some might think this to be undesirable. Second, if you do think the intelligent designer is God, then why don't you openly proclaim this instead of hiding behind 'intelligent designer' as a code for God? To do this is a cowardly denial of God - compounded by subordinating God's power to man's ignorance. ID is a blasphemy that some persons promote fully knowing the deception. And that others promote because they are simply not thinking carefully about the consequences. Neither alternative glorifies God nor promotes good science education. In the end, the real issue is intrusion by religion into science curricula. And if the ID and fundamentalist movement are successful, it is an iniquity that will indeed be visited on generations of our children. I for one will resist that end.

Sorry, I was sent back from the mini-rapture just long enough to torment Rooster7 a little. So far, it seems that Merlyn is the only one to actually READ the decision. It is a devastating document, delivered by a George W. appointee who previously has stated his support for teaching ID, and whose mentors include staunchly conservative republicans. This decision definitely has winners. The winners in this case are the children attending science classes in public schools. As we say on the other side of rapture...EeeeeeHaaaaa! Going back to space now....have a great holiday everyone (Christmas included as well, but up here the Pagans are doing the decorating this year).

Need I say more? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/education/20cnd-evolution.html For the complete text of the ruling: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmllrdvr122005opn.pdf Enjoy!

The only problem I see is it's cold, rainy, and dreary aorund here. But Terry isn't going to be able to fix that. Great day to go canoing though. Wife said it's a good day for a duck. At least I think that's what she said.

There are many twists on this theme. While I agree with Trevorum, science has a very narrow and inflexible view on the topic and therefore offers little guidance for other human activities outside science. So we now ascend into the airy persiflage of situational ethics. It is easy to imagine or remember situations in which our mistakes and deceptions cause problems. In some cases the most direct and just solution is indeed to commit one more careful deception. While (in agreement with Trevorum) this is inherently undesirable, the option of doing much greater damage through rigid devotion to truth may be even less desirable. I have seen this in action, for example, where the 'zero tolerance' rules in schools are 'bent' to avoid tragic results in certain situations. There are so many other examples as well. But a simpler twist has been suggested by Merlyn (perhaps unintentionally) in which the 'rules' change after the agreement has been signed. In one rigid view this is simply an action by an authority not to be questioned. In another view, this is a betrayal of a previous agreement, therefore plunging the relationship into the morass of deceptions we know all too well. In both cases the choice is simple, either play the game or leave. I find it difficult to view either of those options as somehow benefitting the boys.

I think there's nothing like a custom design to fit the needs. I have an old 6place trailer that is too limited for trips - small wheels, narrow wheel base, light-weight carrying capacity. So after browsing numerous other designs in the region I have procured a large boat trailer with bent frame (a freebie, nice) that I am modifying to be a 12-place canoe trailer with a large stowage box underneath. This will hold us nicely for quite a while, I think. Capacity, utility, and road-worthiness are the major factors I think.

Hops_scout, I built my first one in high school back in 1967. PVC pipe wasn't the same and it wasn't as easy to find so we used galvanized pipe. And we didn't use potatoes but tennis balls and turnips (close enough to a potato). And we used lighter fluid, acetylene, propane, black powder, and gasoline all as propellants (propane being the actual component of hair spray that is used today). And most of us are still alive today. But we didn't do these apocalyptically stupid things as part of the scouting program. We did these secretly because we knew no adult in their right mind would permit it.

Taking a break from ironing clothes and enjoying the smells coming up from the kitchen...I second Ed's message. To you too, Ed, have a healthy, happy Thanksgiving.

I suppose BSA deserves this kind of scenario for the poor wording they use in so many of their rules. I say, emphatically, that this violates G2SS. There is no difference between the spud gun described in the original post and a cannon using black powder. Both involve explosive combustion to produce high-pressure gases propelling a projectile at high velocity. I suggest calling the council for permission and see what they say but if they don't allow laser tag, they probably won't allow something that actually fires a projectile, at least not in the setting described originally. BTW, G2SS also does not specifically prohibit land mines or cruise missiles.

Ed, Merlyn, enough already! Or else, get a room! In less than three pages the thread has decomposed to 'ilk'. We already know what your responses are going to be before you write them. Please try to come up with something new...Just a personal view. Ronvo, I would like to say that I agree with your posts and I hope to read more of you in the future. Hunt, thanks for your clarifications. Edited part: dyslexic fingers, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I support the regulatory limits and after seeing the effects of 'illegal' larger groups, I wish they were enforced more strictly. In this area, we also contend with horseback riders and mountain bikes on trails clearly marked for foot traffic only. Very frustrating. This issue reminds me of something I learned several decades ago during a citizenship merit badge: ignorance of the law doesn't excuse breaking it. We always do research on the destination and PREPARE ahead of time. So far, we've only had one problem and that was an honest misunderstanding that we worked out with the rangers (they are almost always very reasonable people who want to resolve problems in a rational manner). The solution: have adequate leadership and, if necessary, split into groups of legal size. Stop breaking the law.

Firecrafter, those are some very sad things. I feel badly for the boys involved and probably for the rest of the boys in the troop as well. Unfortunately, I have no solutions except to try to support those involved who have cool heads and are working toward resolution. We have confronted something like this on occasion but so far I have been an effective advocate for the scout in each case. I wish your troop success.

I liked the other thread (Agnostic Scout) much better. I don't understand why it was closed. It hadn't gotten out of hand. There were actually some interesting things being written. And this one was almost destined (apologies to my fellow Presbyterians ) to become an Ed/Merlyn thing. And it has. Trevorum, I agree with what you said about deception. However, (and in further agreement) in the tradition of Jeff Foxworthy, when the wife asks, "...do you think my butt is fat?", this is a moment of 'truth' for anyone about to answer. That question was asked for a reason and the reason wasn't because the asker doesn't know the answer. I admit that I have a lot to learn about the way we interact, but I have learned that sometimes 'deception' is it the better part of valor. Or as the Talosians might say, "They have their illusions and you have yours. May yours be as pleasant.";)

Hey, Proud Eagle, I liked that and I deeply sympathize. Over the years I have been able to develop resistance, however, to saying 'yes' to the council. Instead I give it all to the boys. Kittle, I have to respond to your message. I was a Webelos leader and later cubmaster for years. I love the cubs and I think I was able to cope with what you describe by taking on a mental attitude that I was a zookeeper. Those boys are, to my mind, the moral equivalent of raccoons (ready to raid any cookie jar around) and I was able to avoid excessive frustration by associating my expectations with my zoological view. Just a suggestion...adopt a realistic expectation and enjoy the ride.

Hey Ed, I hope that isn't a personal statement. I think most leave when their boys leave, for whatever reason. At least that's what I have observed. And then we have the occasional, you know, 'retirement' when an old fart like me just gets too tired to keep up anymore. We sort of find a section of ice that's broken away and float off slowly (around here it's called 'gardening' or something similar). And they are pleased to note from a distance that the boys haven't seemed to notice. It's all about the boys, you know. Ed, BSA and the local council can do whatever they want but every time I see one of those young faces with a smile, the smile that I carry inside me lasts a long, long, time. They can't suck that away.

Prairie, I'm with you, man.

Torveaux, I grant that you may be correct. However, I note that everyone, even criminals, are subject to market forces...even if they are blackmarket forces. If, as Zahnada writes, we were able to restrict the supply somehow, the price would increase everywhere. As it is, firearms are essentially a throw-away commodity for a consumer society. The problem is that lives are being consumed in the process as well. LongHaul, licensing yes. But for some persons that translates to ownership. In this and many other states, you cannot legally hunt unless you have taken and passed a hunter-safety course. Would I purchase an expensive, hunting long arm if I wasn't allowed to hunt with it? Not likely. Would I purchase an expensive pistol sized for concealed carry if I wasn't allowed to carry? Unlikely. Unless, in both cases, I intended to break the law.

Torveaux, I was the one who made the quip about shotguns. I guess my view is biased by an interest in eating what I kill. And you probably have upland game that is more substantial than around here (except for turkeys which we do hunt with rifles anyway). I just can't trade the price of ammunition for what I get from a dove. Your argument for concealed carry is persuasive and it has a good foundation in game theory as well as economics. Just a couple of comments: Indeed criminals are usually cowards in many and profound ways. But cowards are even more unpredictable, making them (in some ways) more dangerous. If they have a weapon (and it is far too easy for them to have one) the risks are much greater and the argument could be made that a coward might lose some fear with weapon in hand. With respect to training, it does work at least for concealed carry - and I think it would work for other firearm ownership as well. If similar background check and training was required all around, and if gun-show and private sales with no regulation were ended, eventually there would be an effect on the number of guns in the hands of criminals. The effect would be that guns are more difficult to acquire thereby making them more expensive on the black market. Unfortunately the bottom line has an element of fatalism....there are so many out there already that any measure that COULD have an effect may take a very long time to be effective. The atitude that, because of that, we should give up on efforts, I think is wrong. I do agree, however, that existing laws should be enforced fully. I also think that, for the most part, they are.

Sorry Kahuna, when the mini-rapture was over and they realized their mistake and sent me back, in the intervening time I must have missed that earlier post.

Loosely? I consider it to be the strictest interpretation. Make of that what you will but I didn't write it, BSA did. Actually, the way it is being interpreted here DOES delete part of the oath, the part about doing one's best. So in a sense you have already endorsed the practice of deletion to fit one's preconceived notion. Edited part: It just occurred to me that I may need to actually explain what I just wrote. Here goes: The wording of the oath does not say, "I xxxx, promise to do my duty...". Rather it says, "I xxxx, promise to do my best to do my duty..." Anyone who decides to drop that first part of the oath has made a huge modification of the meaning and that DOES qualify as a loose interpretation. For that matter it is an outright FALSE interpretation. Until BSA changes it, I don't see any other way TO interpret it strictly. If the boy actually does his best, then he has lived up to the promise in the oath.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)