packsaddle

Just a note: fuel prices in our area have increased by nearly $1 per gallon in the last few days. FYI, this has NOTHING to do with the price of a barrel of oil. But people seem to be shrugging it off. I wonder at what price we will no longer be able to maintain our old habits?

JD, I was thinking something similar. Thanks for your observations. If merely associating with gays gets you terminated, then I'm toast. I also hope there was more to the decision than has been posted here.

Again, firstpusk, I agree. I add to the your last thought that 'randomness' is exceedingly difficult to prove even for some situations where it seems intuitively obvious and great care must be taken when employing the concept (perhaps care that is lacking in ID). But use of the concept of 'randomness' IS a facile way to erect an ad hoc hypothesis that is easily rejected. It is a tactic that is rarely successful against critical examination but constitutes a deception nevertheless.

Fuzzy, I was ok with your post until your application of the term, 'valiant'. I think many creationists (at least the ones trying to turn me from the dark side ) would disagree that they are trying to merge the two sides. Rather, they are convinced of their infallible truth - young earth, six days, the whole schmere. Anything that differs is simply wrong. As for those who promote ID, it seems to me that their motives are very mixed. Some may think they're helping the creationism side (many creationists are nervous about this) and some sincerely want to find alternative explanations, they simply have left the world of science. However, I fear that a few others are knowingly engaging in a deception in order to try to persuade public policy. Hardly a way to bring the two together and, I think, hardly intended to.

Hunt, I agree. A PTA (or PTO, whatever) would be a weak CO. For what it's worth, our CO has also had discussions about the BSA policy on gays. But the homophobes are in the majority and I suspect will remain that way. It is an increasingly divisive issue, though, and no one in the CO is happy about having to (as my grandmother used to say) "stir that turd".

The families that have mentioned this to me haven't indicated a demand for gay leaders. Rather they reacted to the BSA policy which in their opinion (as they said) was intolerant. Duh! The above anecdote and all the others are worthless to evaluate the decline. The past cannot be changed. BSA is free to establish their policies. Families are free to make their decision on any basis they like. Whether the decline is due to BSA policy on gays and atheists, or whether it is due to competition with soccer and other sports, the market is working its magic. Any other good business in decline would re-evaluate its business practices or face the music. Perhaps it is time now for BSA to answer those calls for an assessment of some objective numbers to sort out the most likely factors for this decline. In response, BSA could make policy or program modifications designed to reverse the trend. Alternatively, BSA could, who knows, perhaps falsify membership numbers in order to receive inflated funding based on those bogus numbers. Anyone hear music?

So....if the CO owns all the stuff, and if BSA is not rechartering units to public schools, does this mean that the troops going to a new CO have to start from scratch - no equipment, no bank account, etc.?

Science can't answer what was there before the big bang. Or whether anything was there. I can live with that. I do like Hunt's tongue-in-cheek system (whether solopsism or not) because it demonstrates how a person can concoct a personal system (religion?) that is equally valid to any other system or religion, no matter how many persons may claim otherwise. But if Hunt wants his head to remain attached to his body, he probably shouldn't advertise his heresy. Just lookin' after ya, Hunt And I think Hunt is too nice regarding ID with his idea about 'esthetics'. ID derives its strength from the inability to explain, or a lack of information, knowledge, and understanding about something. Those who argue for ID are fond of saying things such as, 'Because we have no conceivable explanation for (blank, you fill in the complex structure or process), or how the (blank) could have arisen through random chance, it must have been the product of an intelligent designer'. There is a better term for such lack of knowledge or understanding. That term is 'ignorance'. In essence, the strength of ID is diminished as we acquire information, knowledge, and understanding about complexity. And its strength is deceptively proportional to our ignorance. This is one reason that while you can easily find in reputable scientific journals, articles that critically examine various aspects of evolutionary theory, you will never find an article in support of ID in those same journals. One last note, for those who are interested in genetic variation in human populations, I recommend the following link: http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/whatdiff.htm This is a discussion about a three-part series entitled, 'RACE - the Power of an Illusion'. If any of you get a chance to view it, the first part alone is a wonderful study of how we view each other, absent objectivity. The second two parts demonstrate the result to society. Enjoy. Edited part: sorry, typos.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I will attempt to respond, bbng. Firstpusk has already addressed part of what I would have said. I also examined the web site. The statement from that site, "Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God...", is in itself a presupposition (actually a prejudice) by the author that is false, but necessary for him to strengthen his so-called reasoning. And it doesn't seem to fit with your characterization of the site that it does "...a pretty good job of explaining how creationism and science do go together." Persons who accept the idea of evolution by natural selection may or may not reject the existence of God. From the scientist's perspective, there isn't necessarily a presuppostion regarding God at all...it isn't necessary. But claiming this about scientists may seem more convincing to persons who fail to view the site critically. I was raised to accept creationism but I no longer accept the contention that the various creation myths are literally true. I might if I could figure out which one was more correct than the others. That said, I also cannot reject the myths through experimentation. They represent a system of understanding that is not available to scientific methods and therefore they do not qualify as science. None of them. In this respect, you are correct - science does not conflict with creationism. Because creationism is unavailable to scientific examination. It isn't science. To some, this appears to be a criticism of creationism. There is no need for such a defensive posture. While there seems to be a tendency for creationists to feel threatened by ideas that do not confirm their beliefs (evidence, the web site), this is more often associated with questions of origins rather than, say, whether or not the earth is the center of the solar system (although some still cling to that idea, go figure). This, I think, is a misunderstanding. The actual difference between creationism and science is the difference between: 1) beliefs based on faith and, 2) tentative ideas based on a system of objective observations open to critical examination through experimentation or other tests. The particular idea in question is irrelevant - the difference is in the way 'understanding' is acquired and applied. In science, the 'faith' that you observe is actually a working assumption, tentatively accepted until a better idea is discovered. If the assumption is being subjected to critical examination it may form a hypothesis. All scientific ideas are forever available for rejection should sufficient objective evidence be found for such rejection. I know of no faith-based belief that demands such a critical test for its acceptance. If there is one, I would be very interested in learning more about it. The web site, as noted by firstpusk, promotes a young earth (universe) version of creationism. I understand that this is necessary because persons holding that view see a more ancient earth as contradictory to their version of the biblical account. It provides an instructive example. To explain the scientific evidence for an earth with much greater age, these persons have proposed very elaborate ideas in which, for example, radioactive decay does not occur at the same rate today as it did back in time. In essence this argument depends on our inability to examine past decay rates as a test of the idea. It can't be tested therefore it can't be rejected. Nevermind that the only reason to concoct the idea in the first place is in order to try to conform to the...what was that term..."presupposition" of the correctness of their biblical interpretation. There IS a lesson in all this. But it has more to do with self-deception (and I'm being very charitable here) than with science.

I agree completely.

These were parents who were interested enough to attend the meeting and volunteer for other slots. Assuming that contributions were rather evenly distributed, they probably DID make a FOS contribution before. I think Hunt is correct, these families strongly support the troop. But events in the news may make them suspicious of levels above the troop. The troop is doing great but now we'll have to take extra time to "...explain the structure of the scouting community and how a healthy council helps to not only provide a better service and program support to the scouts in the unit today but also in the future." The parents only 'see' the council when the council is asking for money. And then they see the headlines. But the families still support the unit, more than ever. Here's the interesting part - in effect, the unit is operating like a 'private club' within the private club. Perhaps this is the ultimate local option, keeping the funding at home?

Gee thanks, this gives me the opportunity to repeat (Ronald Reagan would be saying something like, "..there you go again, Packsaddle") a statement that a guy I know likes to make. I'll shoo the chickens off the sofa to visit and this overweight, beer-guzzling, often-unwashed person who still has some of his teeth and a Confederate flag flying in front of his house, says gleefully as he takes another swig just after he spits tobacco, "God made me in His own image" and then he breaks into maniacal laughter. And I have to laugh with him too, what a card! Who knows, maybe he knows something we don't. Edited part: firstpusk, I think creationism is a denial of science in general.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

'Ghost camping'? I'm intrigued as well. I think they guys would really like to try this. Tell us more.

stlscouter, I think I get your question regarding how everything came to be. Science can't answer it. We can make intelligent guesses and hypotheses but experimental tests are, for the time being, out of the question. Therefore, we logical positivists are left with a knowledge void regarding that and many other questions. Some of us are OK with the void and view it as a place of exploration and future discovery. Others of us try to fill the void with their faith. The latter approach is perfectly acceptable but it isn't science. My advice to students is to embrace the unknown and revel in it by exploring and discovering. There is much joy to be found in that as well.

Returning to an earlier question, at our annual organizational meeting one of the open committee slots was for the FOS committee chair (this is usually a committee of 1). The scoutmaster noted that FOS contributions from troop families tripled after we STOPPED allowing the DE to visit and speak. However, this year, in this troop that is growing rapidly and populated with dedicated families, no one was willing to take the FOS chair. The reason, as discussed by the parents at the meeting, was that on the basis of what they heard about the various recent scandals, especially Atlanta, they are willing to support the troop but little or nothing beyond that. Market forces seem to be working their magic.

I used to have a problem with deleted sections of my messages. This had nothing to do with pasted text. But when I terminated the use of Starband.net, a two-way satellite link, this problem ended. I now use both DSL and cable modem. Neither has ever exhibited the problem. Beyond this observation, I have no idea why the problem happened. Perhaps something to do with the latency of the satellite link?

This summer I saw so many huge RVs clogging the highways that the thought that kept coming to mind was: 'When dinosaurs roam the earth'. At least in the form of fossil fuel in those guzzler tanks. I wondered how those folks could afford to drive all over the country in those monstrosities. Now I am beginning to see them for sale in front yards everywhere. Who in their right mind would want one? This topic had brief discussion a couple of years back in a different thread. I made an observation that I have thought about since. If the government had added tax that brought the price to a mere $2, we probably would have seen a huge outcry. But we merely shrug if the market (and the oil industry) does the same thing. Interesting. Even more interesting...We have consistently supported a national policy that promotes free market actions. We have elected leaders who support marketplace mechanisms and capitalism in general. In doing so we have placed our futures in the unseen hands of the magic of the free market. The market is working. It will continue to work. Why are we whining about this? If the price is too high, stop buying the gasoline. But if we ARE buying it, by definition the price is not too high.

I used to do this with the Cubs. We used bailing twine and doubled it for each strand of yarn. Made a 6 ft length for each boy to take home and use for knot practice. They had a blast. Many years before that, my troop used this procedure to make the troop rope supply each year. We made lengths up to 20 ft but it took forever, at least it seemed that way.

On the assumption that God actually IS omnipotent, omniscient, etc., I doubt that a person can actually comprehend God except in some personal way, and limited by the abilities of that individual. I can't give you a good answer personally. Simply, "God is love" is good enough for me. Alternatively, one of the children in a religious education class in my church once said he thought God was a cloud. That works too. Happy? Of course, I could be wrong. God could very well be a hallucination from eating moldy grain stored for the first time in history in ancient Egypt. It is, after all, an interesting coincidence that the rise of agriculture and the use of grain storage occurs around the same time in history as the various visions and revelations of ancient religions. At least I think it's interesting. As for 'religion', I like door #4 from Webster: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". (see, you COULD have looked it up in the dictionary after all) So how is this related to the topic?

If this keeps up, it's going to be 'meadow muffins' at 20 paces, I feel sure.

I guess a dictionary is on your shelf somewhere but, not to speak for Merlyn, I asked one of my friends this afternoon: God - an imaginary supernatural force (potentially one of many, actually) with various powers (depending on whether Greek, Roman, Norse, Hindu, etc.) Religion - a system of beliefs based on alleged commandments (suggestions?) from one or more of the above. He added some mumblings about such beliefs being irrational in the sense that they are based on one or more imaginary 'friends'. I'm not sure I agree with him on that last part but then, I'm not sure I understand it.

I understood the topic to be, literally, "Should the BSA promote creationism?" and not creationism itself. In other words, I thought it was more of a rhetorical question that suggested extension of the religious nature of the organization to the content of the program, and perhaps suggesting BSA should be anti-science. Not simply about creationist non-science.

Not the theory...but chaos is certainly happening in this thread, at least certain parts of it. While firstpusk and trevorum have offered some correct and reasonable messages, they seem not to have been understood. While I think it is admirable that some of us desire to provide some basic science education, I sense resistance by stlscouter. Back to the subject perhaps?

My review: Among the thinking errors are Victim stance, maybe self-pity stance! http://www.hazelden.org/HAZ_MEDIA/and_release_9729.pdf

I'm trying to concentrate on the original post here. As a volunteer completely devoted to the boys in this unit, I see this issue from that microscopic perspective. And if we represent a 'lifeboat' from the cruise liner, we're surviving quite well. The families in this local area are willing to take that view as well, ignoring the nonsense that we all see at higher levels in favor of the good we do for the boys at the local level. They see the program locally and they like it. The ultimate local option decision always is made by the families: join or leave. And the families like what we're doing locally. In my opinion, this private club will eventually benefit from being subjected to market forces. It may prosper or it may slim down or certain branches may wither and die. So be it. This unit will be just fine either way.