Please stop homosexual activists and atheists

[Hunt]

This may be familiar, and it may have even been posted here before, but it seems to need repeating often.

When scientists use the word "theory" they don't mean the same thing as "hypothesis." In ordinary usage by non-scientists, "theory" means a guess or prediction about what might be the truth. "My theory is that the Reds will go all the way this year." Scientists use "hypothesis" for this idea. Then, they look at all the available evidence, and the explanation that best fits the evidence is a "theory." Thus, for example, a hypothesis might be: "I'll bet there is some force pulling small objects toward large ones--that's why the apple fell on my head." Then you do a lot of experiments, and some math, and you end up with the theory of gravitation. It's not a "fact" in the sense of an actual observation (i.e., this apple falling is a fact)--it is rather a consistent explanation of the known facts. Evolution is the same way--it is not a wild guess, conjecture, or a hypothesis. It is a well-documented and supported explanation of the actual observed facts. It explains many facts better than creationism does (such as the existence of fossil dinosaurs).

There used to be a theory that the sun revolved around the earth. That theory explained a lot of observable facts (like the sun rising and setting), but better observations brought up a lot of facts it didn't explain--leading to a better theory. It would be absurd to argue that these two theories should both be taught in astronomy classes just because they are both "just" theories. One theory is better because it fits the observable evidence better. To make plain-vanilla creationism fit the facts you have to make too many compromises with reasonableness. Evolution fits the facts better, so it should be taught.

As an aside, "intelligent design," in my opinion, is a philosophical idea that is consistent with evolution. It isn't (or at least doesn't have to be) in competition with evolution. Some people think it fits the observed facts better than undirected evolution, but not many scientists think this. It's really more of an esthetic idea ("how could something so complex and beautiful as an oak tree evolve randomly," etc.--an idea I am in sympathy with, but it isn't science, really).

[packsaddle]

From the book, 'An Inordinate Fondness for Beetles':

"Asked what could be inferred about the work of the Creator from a study of His works, the British scientist J.B.S. Haldane is reported to have replied, that He has "an inordinate fondness for beetles." Some people suggest that Haldane never uttered these words, but no one can argue with the truth they contain."

(FYI there are more species of beetles, many more, than anything else on Earth)

 

Dj Vu all over again, it seems. I think Trevorum and Prairie Scouter have it about right. The time/length thing on the other hand, I recognize as a self-deception. For hundreds of years the Church suffered from a self-deception that Galileo was wrong and did this because there was no other way to rationalize their way out of a conflict between infallible interpretation of scripture - and objective facts. In time (actually fairly recently) the Church finally admitted the mistake and apologized for Galileo's rough treatment (not to mention excommunication). For a humorous reference to this see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/pda/A218440

The time conflict also lends itself to self-deception by those who cannot accept objective facts that contradict a popular literal interpretation of myth. The self-deception occurs by rationalizing additional unwritten (and imagined) features to the myth in an attempt to reconcile myth with the obvious power and success of those conflicting objective facts. The beauty of the self-deception is that the embellishments, like the myth, are unavailable to any kind of test and as matters of faith, they are therefore unassailable. But I do enjoy them so.

 

Edited Part: Sorry Hunt, I guess we were typing at the same time. I think you have it well in hand as well although I am not as charitable with the so-called 'Intelligent Design' idea. ID is an idea whose validity is inversely proportional to our understanding of the biological mechanisms that produce complexity. This is to say, its validity depends on ignorance - in that the less we understand about such mechanisms, the easier it is to 'explain' the complexity as a mystery whose answer must be found, perhaps, in some supernatural source.

ID is in many instances, a straight-forward deception by unscrupulous persons. I view them as examples of design by an 'unintelligent' supernatural force.

 

For some reason we often don't want to admit the possiblity that we simply aren't smart enough to provide an answer for some questions...yet. But you are correct that ID is not science and it must not be promoted as such.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[schleining]

The last time I checked the Boy Scouts of America was a PRIVATE organization and therefore is allowed to discriminate in its membership.

Much like my Chartered Organization the Knights of Columbus. You MUST be a Practicing Catholic MAN over the age of 18 to join. The Knights also have the right to remove someones membership ie: Kick them out.

 

The BSA has the right to so the same. It has the right to decide who can and can not be members. It also has the right to take money from whomever it chooses. It is the the BSAs problem if the money comes from a Governmental agency. It is the administrators of said agency to determine weather or not the BSA gets the money.

And furthermore... it has done so since 1910, maintaining its tradition and values for 95 years.

I find it refreshing that an organization can maintain the program this long. That is testimony to the solid foundation that Scouting rests upon.

 

So get off that...

I have stated many times over... I could care less if you are gay or atheists... if you want to be a Boy Scout or a Scout leader.. live by the rules established by the organization or find another one that is more suitable to you.

 

Stop thinking that the BSA is like the Public School system and open to all.

 

My two cents on an extremely tired topic.

 

Jerry(This message has been edited by schleining)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hunt,

 

Even though allot of people ascribe to your theory/hypothesis about the Reds; it will seldom be proved out. There is just too much evidence against it, so really it is just another ID type idea that takes religion way too seriously.

 

FB

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

schleining writes:

It is the the BSAs problem if the money comes from a Governmental agency. It is the administrators of said agency to determine weather or not the BSA gets the money.

 

Getting money from a government agency often involves signing a contract; if the contract specifies that the recipient not discriminate on the basis of X, Y, and Z in the use of that money, it's both the government agency's and the recipient's responsibility to follow the contract.

 

Here's where the Old Baldy Council signed a HUD contract to fund a Scoutreach program; the OBC signed an agreement that it would not discriminate on the basis of religion in conducting that program, in spite of the fact that atheists can't join:

 

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/Old_Blady_Complaint.pdf

 

The OBC is being sued for defrauding HUD.

 

Plus, of course, it looks really bad when an organization that purportedly teaches kids to be honest is caught committing fraud.

 

Stop thinking that the BSA is like the Public School system and open to all.

 

Who has been saying that?

 

[dsteele]

Merlyn raises a good point. He never said the BSA *is* like a public school, open to all.

 

But he's a spokesman for Scouting for All who's mission statement sure makes it sound like he *wants* it to be like a public school.

 

Here's the mission statement from Scouting For All's website:

 

SCOUTING FOR ALL

Committed to Scouting Open to Diversity

 

 

OUR MISSION

 

 

"THE MISSION of Scouting For All, a non-profit 501©(3) organization, is to advocate on behalf of its members and supporters for the restoration of the traditionally unbiased values of Scouting as expressed and embodied in the Scout Oath & the Scout Law, and to influence the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to serve and include as participating members ALL youth and adult leaders, regardless of their spiritual belief, gender, or sexual orientation."

 

I did a simple cut and paste. The emphasis on all is not mine.

 

I find it interesting that although Merlyn continually points out that his beef with the BSA is that the organization accepts government support even while he serves as a spokesman for an organization committed to seeing that anyone who wants to be a leader or a scout in the BSA could be.

 

Why not just come out and say that?

 

Unc.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Uncleguinea writes:

I find it interesting that although Merlyn continually points out that his beef with the BSA is that the organization accepts government support even while he serves as a spokesman for an organization committed to seeing that anyone who wants to be a leader or a scout in the BSA could be.

 

I'm not a spokesman for SFA.

 

And what's so interesting about advocating that an organization stop discriminating, while simultaneously advocating that the government not support that discriminatory organization? It's two sides of the same coin.

[schleining]

Merlyn- you quoted a typo...

It should have read "It is NOT the the BSAs problem if the money comes from a Governmental agency. It is the administrators of said agency to determine weather or not the BSA gets the money."

 

Dang... a typo and I add to his agrument. Shame on me... I'll have to do a better job proofing my posts.

 

NO the HUD should have known better than to get into a contract with something it could not support. The BSA used to take funding from many agencies that it can no longer accept funds from... not because of the Boy Scouts positions, but because someone decided that the Boy Scouts is not worth funding due to it's acceptance of morality, values, faith and Duty to ones God, Country, and Self. God help us cause we are trying to raise good young men...

God is in our Constitution, our Declaration of Independance, and the Bill of Rights did not remove God from our Country.

 

I hope I checked this one better... Don't want to give Merlyn any due..

 

(edited part)

And I never said that Merlyn said that the BSA is like public school and open to all...

 

I am the one that used that as an example of the attitude of those oppossed to the PRIVATE organization called the Boy Scouts of America.

 

I am also NOT placing blame on the HUD. But come on... they should know better also. What it sounds like to me is that someone at the HUD found something good in what the Scouts were doing and allowed it to happen.

Then the ACLU got its arms around it and the whole thing went south.

YEAH>>>>>THATS AN OPINION!

 

Jerry

(This message has been edited by schleining)(This message has been edited by schleining) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[dsteele]

Merlyn:

 

If you are indeed a different Brian Westley than the one listed on the Scouting For All website under board members, then I hope you'll accept my apologies.

 

There is no equivocation in your statement that you are not a spokesman for the SFA . . . and I don't know you to be a liar, so I will state the apology. After all, Brian Westley really isn't that uncommon for a name.

 

I have no doubt that if you were a spokesman for SFA, you would admit it.

 

Unc.

[evmori]

"THE MISSION of Scouting For All, a non-profit 501©(3) organization, is to advocate on behalf of its members and supporters for the restoration of the traditionally unbiased values of Scouting as expressed and embodied in the Scout Oath & the Scout Law, and to influence the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to serve and include as participating members ALL youth and adult leaders, regardless of their spiritual belief, gender, or sexual orientation."

Thanks for posting this, Unc.

What is interesting is the line

restoration of the traditionally unbiased values of Scouting as expressed and embodied in the Scout Oath & the Scout LawThe Oath state On my honor I will do my best To do my duty To God and my country So if SFA wants to do what its mission statement says, why do they advocate for atheists?

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter]

Ed,

This link should take you to the portion of the Scouting for All site that explains their views on BSA and atheists...

 

www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/atheists.shtml

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

schleining writes:

Merlyn- you quoted a typo... It should have read "It is NOT the the BSAs problem if the money comes from a Governmental agency. It is the administrators of said agency to determine weather or not the BSA gets the money." Dang... a typo and I add to his agrument. Shame on me... I'll have to do a better job proofing my posts. NO the HUD should have known better than to get into a contract with something it could not support.

 

I figured you meant to type "not the BSAs problem", and I disagree. When a BSA council signs a legal contract with HUD to not discriminate on the basis of religion, that council will be in a LOT of trouble using that money for their discriminatory Scoutreach program.

 

And BSA councils are still doing it.

 

Uncleguinea writes:

If you are indeed a different Brian Westley than the one listed on the Scouting For All website under board members, then I hope you'll accept my apologies.

 

No apology needed; I am a board member (assistant director, midwest region), but I'm not a SPOKESMAN. I don't speak for SFA. You're a member of the BSA, I assume, but you aren't a BSA spokesman either, I'd wager.

[dsteele]

Merlyn:

 

Then you might want to request that Scouting for All revise their web site. Under the listing of your name as an Assistant Regional Director, it also lists you as SPOKESMAN. There's actually a hotlink that takes visitors to the job description of a SPOKESMAN.

 

Unc.

[evmori]

Prairie,

That's an old link but I found their stance on atheists. And their stance is atheists should be allow to be BSA members which completely flies in the face of the Scout Oath!

 

And Merlyn, you are a SPOKESPERSON for S4A according to their site! I could stoop to calling you what you have called me in the past but I can't get that low.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Sorry, I actually didn't realize that I was listed as a spokesperson (though it looks like practically everybody on the board is listed as a spokesperson). In any case, I haven't been speaking as a SFA spokesperson (and I've been posting here long before I was a member of SFA, for that matter).