text:
- Bernard White
- London Uk
- United Kingdom
This conversation is closed.
Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?
I started this debate, with a new aspect (or perspective) on our current education problem. Considering many focus on how to motivate students and various other aspects. Yet this (creationism) still remains a big problem to the American education system today, and I don't think many people think about this when they consider the education system today.
I feel I should have probably made this clearer, when I say creationism, I am making reference to the type of creationism which tell people "Evolution is wrong". (Or in other words the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate).
Creationism - http://www.creationism.org/
Does it have any credibility to it? Should it be considered a science?
Considering due to recent polls 46% of American believe in creationism.
Link :
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html
Many psychological studies have shown a strong correlation between a lack of education and creationism. These studies indicate that not many creationists actually understand what the scientific method is.
With all this talk of how to "improve education" surely it would be wise, to finally finish the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate, if we wish to ensure a better scientific education!
Watch this 3 minute link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo (By Lawrence Krauss)
Here are some reasons, people believe creationism should be taught in schools, which I believe are false :
Considering, if the polls are to be believed, 46% of Americans are missing out (in my opinion) on a proper scientific education.
I think it is worth mentioning though, that I am fine with "Theistic evolution".
A good book recommendation on this matter is "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Kenneth R. Miller. I personally have never understood the claim "Atheism = Evolution"...
Austin Gee
Jun 4 2013: The reason that people who argue for teaching creationism (or intelligent design which is the same thing) are wrong is because faith cannot answer questions of science, and science cannot answer questions of faith.
- +3
In science, if you cannot test your hypothesis and show it to be wrong, then you cannot use that as a hypothesis. In faith though, any faith, there are many untestable hypotheses.
The simplest example is the question why is the sky blue? If your hypothesis is that God made it that way- then you cannot test that, and therefore it is not science. It may be right or wrong but we don't "know."
If your hypothesis is that the sky is blue because it is reflecting the ocean (the guess I hear most often from my students- which, it turns out isn't the reason- look it up! :-) then you can test that and it is a good scientific hypothesis.
This also speaks to the nature of science which can be confusing. That is, in science we say that nothing really can ever be proven true! Evolution is just a theory- but so is gravity! The only "laws" are those mathematical equations such as F = MA that are based on physics.
So, if there was ever any evidence that the theory of evolution was wrong (just ONE fossil out of order for example) then scientists would have to research another explanation. In the same way, if any evidence ever appeared that our understanding of gravity was wrong, then scientists would have to get busy.
However, over a long period of time, all of our observations of these two phenomena have lead to the current conclusions- across many centuries and many cultures etc... That is how science works. Sometimes it takes a while for a consensus to be reached- think of the Copernican revolution for example, but eventually once many scientists have seen the evidence, the current theory takes shape.
It is important not to discount right away dissenting voices- our history shows that many times, the evidence for their claims was there. If not, ignore them.
Jun 4 2013: The reason, I believe, science and intelligent design do not contradict each other is that we can explain why the sky is blue, how species evolved, or whatever else we can or want to explain, and still say "God made it that way". But "God made it that way" is not a scientific explanation.
Jun 4 2013: Arkady, (I hope you don't mind me asking) do you believe that a God (or spirit of any kind) exists? Sorry, because I can not honestly remember! (I have a very bad memory!) I just want to know. :D
Jun 4 2013: I can't give a simple answer. I've recently watched this video
It explains quite well why certain things cannot be explained in a logical way using words. Words are symbols. Symbols are meaningful only when they are connected to something else. When we ask "does tree exist?" What do we mean by that? It's impossible to answer without context. It can mean a specific plant, a general kind of plants, or we can refer to a structure with "branches" stemming from a "trunk" (e.g. a tree of biological species). Now, what does it mean "to exist"? We can't literally "see" the tree of biological species. It exists only as an idea. It doesn't mean that it's not "real" or "does not exist".
If "God" means a bearded old man in the sky with a stern look watching our every step who, supposedly, created us "from dust" and will judge our deeds - no. I don't believe such old man in the sky exists.
If "God" and "spirit" refers to a principle that drives existence and our life - yes. I believe, such principle exists.Jun 4 2013: I think, Alan Watts video does an excellent job demonstrating why life and universe as a whole cannot be explained in words in a sequential manner as in "A came from B". Attempts to understand life and universe as a sequence of causes and effects lead to the "chicken-and-egg" argument which has no answer or logic. Everyone knows and understand that eggs grow inside a chicken, and chickens develop from eggs. They grow together, from inside each other - from within "self". The growth of life, growth of ripples on the water, and the expansion of universe is the same process governed by the same principle. If I ask you, where a circular ripple on the water starts, the obvious answer is that a ripple starts from its center. You will not find where a ripple starts by going around the ripple - from the chicken to the egg, back and forth. You will not find it going from one ripple to the next either - all ripples are alike. Each ripple moves on, raising ripples in front and ripples behind. The principle that caused the ripples is in the center of them, but it's not the part of the ripples.
I cannot explain it with words arranged in sentences. "Those who know, don't tell; and those who tell don't know". If you understand what I'm talking about, it would be enough for me to draw an image of ripples on the water with no explanation. I believe, this elusive "self" which is in the center of everything is God (I am who I am). So, it's ultimately useless to discuss whether matter comes from spirit or spirit comes from matter, whether we need faith to find knowledge or we need knowledge to believe, whether we have free will to choose our experiences or whether our choices are predetermined by our past experiences. We are looking at ripples spreading from the center. What's in the center? "Self". What is "self"? It's "self" - that's it.
I love the new animation that they use in front of all TED videos now.Jun 4 2013: And, if anyone thinks he understands how ripples from a drop of water are formed, watch this.
or this
Notice how a drop creates ripples, and ripples create a new drop. What causes what? Chicken and egg again.
There are, perhaps, hundreds of slow-motion videos of ripples from a drop of water, some are accompanied by the kind of music used in churches, and some - by "spiritual" messages from all kinds of religions. How do people make these connections and associations? In a "metaphoric" or "spiritual" sense, this drop of water causes "ripples" in our minds and our words cause "ripples" in the minds of other people.Jun 5 2013: Arkady,
I feel like they explained the phenomon of the water droplet forming pretty well in the first youtube video you gave us?! What is your question?
They said it was a layer of air that holds the droplet up, and is slowly pushed out from between the droplet and the water. Tthen, because the mixing of the droplet and the water happens so fast- some gets pinched off (the new, smaller droplet). After that, the surface tension of the water holds the new droplet up until the new layer of air is pushed out from inbetween them. This process repeats until the droplet is small enough to be completely absorbed.Jun 13 2013: Austin,
Re: "I feel like they explained the phenomon of the water droplet forming pretty well in the first youtube video you gave us?! What is your question? "
They feel that way too. When we see something, we feel that we understand it and can explain it. Once these scientists got this fancy camera in their hands and "saw" it, immediately, there is a theory in their head explaining it and the scientist who saw it first can look smart on the video and explain this and that. But did the scientist have any idea of this droplet bouncing back and forth before he saw it? I have a feeling that seeing this droplet bouncing over 4 times on the water within a fraction of a second was a complete surprise. And I'm sure, if they look at it under 10,000x magnification or slow down the time 1000 times more they would see something they have no idea about.
Do you understand what "understanding" means? You can say, you do, and it may be so. But there is no logic or explanation. There is nothing but reference to "self" again.
Wil Hunt
Jun 8 2013: "You and my faith half agree on a lot of this, and you and my science half disagree."
- +1
Not to sound arrogant and condescending, but let me make this observation: One man's "faith" is another man's fact.
My argument is anecdotal, based on personal experience, and not "faith." I don't expect you, or another not so disposed, to agree with my experience, but my knowledge of life and the unseen reality that buttress it is unshakable.
"Ideas are not necessary for life. Saying the purpose of life is life itself is begging the question with an invalid premise."
Value it or not, the Source of life is Life, the substance of life is Life, the outcome of life is Life, the reason for life is Life (or we wouldn't see so much of it, at least on this planet), and when I continue Life after my physical body ceases to be, Life will still define, and sustain me.
For my part, I don't see science as a friend, but I'm not at war with it either, not in ways that are obvious. Ignorance and laziness was, and is, so many impediments to spiritual growth (the source of real power and dominion), and science continues to usurp that power by insisting that man and the universe are essentially, if not wholly, physical.
I fault religions, more than science, for not entering the Kingdom, and for not allowing mankind to enter the Kingdom when it sought the kingdom, although these religions held the keys.
I don't seek to reconcile science with religion as I don't think the two intercept, but are irreconcilable and antagonistic one toward the other, with religion designating God (Spirit) as the Source of all we see, while science elevates matter and enshrines empiricism as the way to understand life, our world, and our universe, including those physical mechanisms that seem to drive it.
I hate being an alarmist, but this world is at a crossroads. We'll lose if we travel the road we're taking, where our focus is turned outward, rather than inward, and we choose to not go within, but to go without
Sam Powick
May 28 2013: I would be interested to know what percentage of Americans understand the science behind evolution.
- +3
The most important premise behind any debate such as this one is that all questions must be honest. In other words, each participant must be prepared to change their views/back down if their questions are answered to their satisfaction.
Personally, I think that it is more scientific to teach the widest scope of theories to do with the origin of the universe in schools as possible, as it is impossible to prove any one view. It is surely unscientific to limit teaching material to one view or interpretation of evidence. Thus, I would say that teaching creationism in schools is not a problem, (not that it is taught widely anyway), but it should be presented as a theory just as anything else on the topic of origins should be.
To those other Christians engaging in heated debate, I would remind them that arguing about creationism is not the way to convince people to join their religion. Also, while Christianity is certainly not un-supported by historical and scientific evidence, it deals mostly in matters of the heart. Creationism should not become the central issue determining the credibility of our faith.
Jun 4 2013: Yes that would be very interesting to find out! :DMay 15 2013: Creationism as in "creationism versus evolution" is clearly wrong. It is far from being science. The kind of creationism that pretends that there was really a global flood and that the planet is just 6000 or so years old is the worst in terms of how ignorant and miseducated people have to be in order to believe such things. The conflict between that kind of creationism and the most basic science is overwhelming, and thus reflects horrendous ignorance and miseducation.
However, I doubt that we can educate people well enough that a majority became able to see the problems with that kind of creationism. I still think that it is worth trying to educate people as well as possible. Our future as humanity depends enormously on having scientifically literate people.
Mike Colera
Jun 12 2013: As this conversation gets to the end... and reading most of these comments, I am still not convinced that the teaching of creationism hasn't any appreciable effect on the educational crisis is public schools. Considering the the vast majority if not all public schools do not teach these subjects. Public school education is failing without the help of religious beliefs. Private and parochial school are doing better in teaching according to most measures.
- +2
As far as creditably goes, like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder....
Good run, Bernie
Jun 12 2013: I agree! :-) Thanks for your comment! :D
I do sometimes wonder myself whether certain statistics are to be trusted, like according to some polls (as cited) roughly 50% of Americans are meant to be creationists (and the statistic which claims 70% of people in the world believe in some Deity). This isn't that surprising to me, considering we are intuitive (or inherent) creationists (Evolutionary thinking doesn't come naturally). However according to another poll, more people believe in the Devil (60%) and hell (61%) than in evolution. While it is worrying that 42% believe in Ghosts and 32% believe in UFO's! Very worrying!
Yet I do think there is enough data to suggest that creation is correlated (I would be inclined to argue causation) with a poor level of a scientific education. I strongly believe that science shouldn't really be democratic, in the way of "teaching of controversy". (Not to say people shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech, or be allowed to pose opposing theories!)
Regards (as always),
P.S: I was really enjoying your TED Conversation! It does seem quite an important issue. If you don't mind me asking (honestly), have I ever insulted you? (I hope not!) Personally I'v always wondered why so many people are intolerant (and cruel) to eachother on Youtube, while on TED everybody is so respectful!
Jun 12 2013: Thanks Bernie,
No, there has only been a very few times that I felt a phrase in response to me was a little over the top. But, I have seen some real zingers out there in the few months I have been on TED. I think some do not respond well to challenges to their point of view. So it is. Maybe, my talk will remind people that harsh speech doesn't really win many arguments and refrain from that sort of language.
You got a point on polls. I saw some really questionable out there during our last elections.
I have a couple of kids who are educators. One in Math and one in History/Civics. They have both told me that college level scientist do not go into teaching. The money is in Industry. So, if you have a class in college chemistry, you can be hired as a science teacher for high school. I said a class. Or course, you will also have biology and physics classes. This is more likely then the fact the Johnny doesn't know about the sciences because he heard about the Garden of Eden last Sunday.
Moreover, teachers are not really teaching any more. They are educational facilitators.
They handout workbooks addressing the state exams and answer any questions the student may have about the workbooks. They grade the workbooks and return to the student with explanations of how he may do better. They proctor the state exams, hoping their students do well as their jobs depend on it.
So, then US is way behind the world in Math and Science... we don't do well in language arts either.
Wil Hunt
Jun 13 2013: "While it is worrying that 42% believe in Ghosts and 32% believe in UFO's! Very worrying!"
- 0
Bernard, thanks for the conversation and the topic that generated so many disparate comments, and points of view.
What should "worry" you about beliefs in Ghosts and UFOs is not that people are somehow inept thinkers, gullible, or irrational, but that the significantly high number of beliefs suggests the plenitude of encountered apparitions and UFO events that gave rise to these numbers.
These beliefs generally have a basis in people's experiences, whether you believe them to be credible or not.
The History Channel has run a program titled, "I Know What I Saw." I believe that it's about 5 segments long, and can be seen on YouTube. See link below. Regarding UFO sightings, many notables, including President Jimmy Carter, have claimed to have seen a UFO.
One parting word: Were you privy to all that's occurring on this planet, you'd be amazed, and then amazed again.
Jimmy Strobl
Jun 8 2013: Bernard,
- +2
I'm going to answer as many aspects of your title and explanation as I can in this post.
Firstly "Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?"
Yes, creationism indicated and builds on bad education, a simple comparison of the atheistic vs religious academia will strongly support this. It can be fixed by removing it and therefore it should not be thought (in the manner it is, it should be taught along side all the other creation myths). And no, it has no credibility whatsoever except for those who already find it in religious scriptures.
I have always considered religious pseudoscience to be a great problem for any education system, naturally thinking about the US first as you are predominant in this aspect in the west.
Your point is clear to me, even without explaining it.
It has no credibility to it. It should most definitely NOT be considered a science because it isn't a science! Science follows the scientific method, creation does not. 46% of your population is dead wrong, even more seem to believe in ghosts, I wouldn't be surprised if we find that a majority of Americans believe in unicorns soon enough... Although I would hope that they realize that there is nothing backing the claim that unicorns exist and that science doesn't have to prove to them that unicorn doesn't exist for them to stop believing (as is the current case with God).
I have not encountered A SINGLE creationist (And through the years I've met many) that understood the scientific method. And there is definitely a correlation between religiousness and education. Basically the dumber you are the higher are the odds of you being religious.
There's no way that you're going to "finally finish the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate" here... but thanks for doing your part in making people smarter, asking questions is all it takes.
I'm out of characters now...Jun 4 2013: Never ever should creationism be taught to kids. It is purely belief, regardless of how many people believe in it. In fact the only the poll of nearly 50% of americans believing in it makes me think that other countries truly have valid credibility to label us as the "stupid americans." if you want to study religion, do it on your own time but do not waste your beliefs on the future of a generation. Kids only believe in a God solely because they learn the bible before they learn science. It is sickening to me that people can sanely approve of beliefs being taught in a classroom that demands proof. Children are curious. If we block their knowledge with religion, which we have done forever, creativity is dampened and open mindedness is lost. do not teach what we hopelessly want to know. teach what we do know.
Mike Colera
Jun 4 2013: Such surety in your position. A belief in a Divine Being is shared world wide. So, if I follow your logic, much of the great civilizations, art and science in human history were accomplished by "stupid" people.
- +1
Further, religion doesn't demand proof, it demands faith.
In the end, I am willing to wager that in your own ancestry, I could find some that held a strong belief in religion.Jun 4 2013: Brendan,
Americans believe in democracy, individual freedom, and human rights. Do you know of any scientific evidence on which such beliefs are based? What is the evidence that proves that any human has the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (or any other right for that matter)? I don't know of such evidence. These are moral beliefs. They are not scientific beliefs. These beliefs represent an ideology.
Is it stupid to believe in human rights without evidence? Should we teach the subject of human rights to children at school? Isn't it "indoctrination" to teach these things to children at school so that they grow up and go to wars with countries where people have different beliefs?
Not everything demands proof. Certain situations in life demand other things - compassion, forgiveness, trust, etc. That's what people refer to as "spiritual area of our life". Science does not help much there.Jun 4 2013: I've heard this buzz-phrase in a commercial this morning "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care". Shall we teach kids to "know" or shall we teach kids to "care"? Kids won't learn unless they "care" (have a passion) for something.
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." -- David Hume.
I think, teaching children "to care" is more important than teaching them "to know". If hey care, they will learn on their own. What things should children "care" for? There is no scientific answer for that. This is a question of worldview, belief systems, moral principles, etc. Whether we want it or not, we teach these things to children. It's not a question "if we should teach belief systems to children", the question is "how we should teach".
Jun 5 2013: Yes, i got a bit defensive and sure of myself. That's probably what i get for arguing at 4 am while sleep deprived. I am just not ok with teaching kids things that don't necessarily apply to everyone in the classroom. Some may believe in God, while others do not, so to find a happy medium, i would say make it a selective course not mandatory. Similar to evolution, evolution should not be taught to people who don't believe in it. Respectfully, beliefs should be the foundation of education, and not wasting kids' time with things they don't even believe in. I guess my problem at heart is America's screwed up education system. Kids all have to learn things regardless of whether they want to, and it should be selective. If they grow up with religion, then yes, they should learn it. If they don't then they shouldn't. However it just should not be taught to everyone, resulting in a waste of some kids' time. (same with evolution)
Jun 5 2013: Perhaps, a few mandatory courses wouldn't hurt, but I agree, creationism shouldn't be one of them.
I love it when people get humble and admit that I am right. It makes me so proud of myself! :-DJun 5 2013: it's just that if creationism is going to be mandatory then evolution should be as well. Creationism is always talked about in my classrooms and then evolution is like the vocal taboo. It's just stupid to me, and both should be on par.
Jun 5 2013: Then, your attitude is understandable. Are you talking about a public school? Is it taught as a "scientific theory" in a science class?
Here, in Oregon, in public schools people never even mention Christmas - it's all euphemisms - "Winter Holidays" and "Season's greetings". I don't like it either. I have 3 kids in schools and I don't think they teach creationism here. I myself went to school in Ukraine.
Is there statistics in how many states they teach creationism in biology class in public schools?
What would happen if you voice your opinion in class against teaching creationism as science? Has anyone raised this issue to the school board or the state government?Jun 5 2013: thats really interesting to me. around here, christmas is the only holiday ever mentioned. our teachers openly talk about their beliefs on creationism but discussion and teaching of evolution is banned. its unreasonable to me and yes, it is a public school. As far as I am aware declaring belief in evolution in the classroom is just brushed aside and its a real shame. I want to learn about it and I can't because of the school's rules. Raising the issue to a 100% catholic school board will have pitiful results. As for the government, Illinois is already in enough trouble with laying off teachers and whatnot. Bottom line, no (humane) subject should be banned. Some schools teach evolution and ban creationism. As for the rest, we have the opposite.
I like the insight you provided though. The amount of biased opinion around here is ridiculous. I don't know Ukraine does it, but I'm sure its better. We offer a bible school, and relgion class, but evolution is banned. its unfair to kids.
Jun 5 2013: Apparently, not all states in the U.S. are equal in this respect. As for learning about evolution, "The Origin of Species" is online. There are tons of books around. Schools can't teach everything anyway.
Ukraine has other issues, with education and otherwise. Quite honestly, everyone is bashing education in the U.S. - that we teach kids the way we did it 50 years ago. It's not true. It's not all that bad. I am thinking to start a discussion here on TED to say some good things about education in the U.S.May 24 2013: In my opinion, evolution does not contradict creationism at all.
Science, in general, and evolution, in particular, answer the question "how?" rather than "why?". "Why?" is a human question. It's a question of purpose and motivation which material universe lacks.
Creationism, on the other hand, is, mostly concerned with "why?" rather than "how?". It's a religious question. I don't think, it can be taught without teaching religion, and teaching religion in public schools is wrong. In my opinion, it's like teaching about hurricanes in a science class and asking a question "why did innocent children had to die in Oklahoma?". That's not a scientific question.
May 24 2013: I have heard a very different story my friend.
One which involved God not just being the 'why', yet god also being the 'how'.
That is what 'creationism' is as I define it.
Out of interest why do you view teaching religion is wrong? I can accept teaching creationism (in a science class) is wrong, Yet find religion harder to accept.
Considering there are many religions (some old which included old Gods like the Ancient Greek Gods, and some new which include monotheistic Gods).
May 24 2013: Miracles are called miracles because they have no explanations and go beyond our everyday experience. Once we have an explanation "how" something happens, it becomes science. Do you have an example where the Bible explains the "how" in the creation story?
I did not say that teaching religion is wrong in general. Everything has its time and place. Ecclesiastes is my favorite book in the Bible.
I believe, we need to have a clear understanding of what things are and what they are not. Otherwise, we get confused. Religion is NOT science. Religion should not pretend to answer scientific questions. Science does NOT answer religious or philosophical questions. These disciplines should not be mixed into a hodgepodge in the same class. I think, it's important to teach children to tell the difference between a scientific knowledge and religious belief. But this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. It belongs in a philosophy class.
I also believe, it is wrong to force religious or ideological opinions and beliefs onto each other. This seems to be the cause of most of the modern social tensions. This is why religion needs to be kept out of politics.
As far as teaching religion in public schools goes, I think, it's important to teach children ABOUT religion in humanities classes. But public schools should not impose religious beliefs on children. This is what I meant when I said that "teaching religion in public schools is wrong". I see a difference between "teaching religion" and "teaching about religion". I'm sorry I didn't make it clear.
May 24 2013: Oh right.
I agree with you then! :-)
However I do think certain lessons religions teach should be encouraged! (E.G. Compassion and forgiveness.)
Have you watched the TED talk :
Atheism 2.0?May 24 2013: Re: "However I do think certain lessons religions teach should be encouraged!"
Definitely so. I think, religion is a very powerful thing. Perhaps, it's the most powerful of social institutions. It's just silly to label it "bad" or "harmful". It can be used for a great good or a great evil. It needs to be studied and used with caution and safety measures to the benefit of society. I disagree with those who label it as "bad" or "harmful" and advise to get rid of it.
I like Atheism 2.0 talk. It's nice to hear an atheist say good things about religion. I view religion as a foundation of culture. All cultures are built on some irrational beliefs (mythology, if you will). Americans, for instance, believe in liberty, democracy, human rights, etc. There are myths and rituals surrounding these beliefs. Soviet Union had beliefs, mythology, and rituals around the doctrine of Marxism. I'd say, these things are a form of religion. They define nations. Take these beliefs, myths, and rituals away - and you will destroy a nation or a whole culture.
May 24 2013: :-)
Seems we'r in agreement!
Have you watched the TED talks :
- Bobby Ghosh: Why global jihad is losing
- Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran
They personally gave me an entirely new perspective on Islam!
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source." - Albert Einstein.May 24 2013: Thanks for the links. I'll watch them when I have time. I'm sure, there are multiple ways of looking at any religion. This applies to most other things. Take money. What is it? Paper? Pieces of metal? A number? Exchange medium? To some people money means power, to others - freedom and happiness, to some - slavery and suffering. It's all of these things and all these things are in our head only. People choose to see the side that has emotional appeal to them. In the same way, some people view religion as the source of joy, love, peace spiritual freedom; others use it to justify violence and oppression; while some tend to blame all evil in the world on it. None of this is "rational" yet, everyone has plenty of reasoning to back up their position.
My position is - believe what you want to believe. Don't believe what you don't want to believe. But don't force others to believe what you believe. Persuade - perhaps. Evidence is just one mean of persuasion. There are plenty of others - appeal to emotion, rhetoric, etc. But forcing others to accept beliefs through legislation, brainwashing, wars, or acts of terror isn't cool. I will say this to an Islamic fundamentalist, a Christian right-wing conservative, a New Atheist, and to anyone in between.
This is my belief which I would like to force onto everyone :-).
Comment deleted
May 24 2013: "Science revealed", mind you.
I don't see much of the "how" in statements like "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." It does not say where the light came from, how bright it was, what color it was. It does not say how this light could be seen or detected - there was nothing yet to reflect or absorb this light. It simply is not a scientific text or way of describing things - no specifics at all.
It makes sense to me as philosophy. "Light and darkness" can be viewed as a distinction between existence and non-existence, life and death, faith and doubt, order and chaos, knowledge and uncertainty, etc. The passage also establishes the rhythm - the foundation of time "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.", "And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.", etc. The whole passage has a rhythm and structure to it. To me, the meaning of this passage is symbolic rather than literal or scientific.
Most of the genesis consists of separation - drawing boundaries and defining what is what. I believe, it describes "how" the world is "created" in our minds. It teaches us to tell things apart, see what things are and what they are not, give names to things and concepts. In this sense, perhaps, there is "how" in the story of genesis. But it is different from the physical "how" which science is mostly concerned with.
May 26 2013: Arkady — you wrote: "The whole passage has a rhythm and structure to it." So that means it cannot be historically factual? I suggest you're attempting to set up a false dichotomy.
Genesis 1 is written as narrative prose; it does not match the criteria of Hebrew poetry. It does not exhibit parallelism (as the Psalms do), and it includes features not generally seen in Hebrew poetry, such as the accusative-marker and the waw-consecutive (each used dozens of times in Genesis 1).
For a solid technical demonstration that Genesis 1 is prose, not poetry, see the detailed statistical work by Old Testament scholar Stephen Boyd: http://www.fireprior.com/resources/genesis/Statistical-Determination-of-Genre-in-Biblical-Hebrew.pdf
The prime reason for disbelieving that Genesis 1 is straightforward history (or for calling it symbolic — really the same thing) is not derived from the text itself. The issue is that we wish to be considered scientific, and the scientists tell us the universe could not have been produced in six normal-length days, and that organisms arrived in a certain order which contradicts the Genesis sequence. Therefore we feel we have to defuse the plain teaching of Genesis in one way or another. In most cases, we prefer not to declare stark unbelief, so instead we condescendingly describe Genesis as "profoundly true" (though historically false) or as "symbolically true" (though actually mythical).
For Christians especially, this dodgy behaviour is unacceptable. A Christian by definition is a follower of Christ, one who believes the teaching of Jesus and accepts it as from God himself (John 7:16). Jesus was clearly a young-Earth creationist (Matthew 19:3-6). He held a high view of Scripture, and of Genesis in particular. http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138&Itemid=62
Let's cease playing such games and deal honestly with our Creator. Stop being "ashamed" of the truth of God, lest the divine Judge be ashamed of you (Mark 8:38).May 25 2013: When it comes to meaning, I totally agree with you regarding "seek and you will find" and "context is the key". Keeping this in mind, I would note, however, that your own writing lacks context. What exactly is this "ALL information" that lies within scriptures which can be only seen by "developing an 'eye that see'"? How does one know which 'eye' sees the 'truth'?
I believe, such statement itself lacks context and, therefore, meaning. If you could explain to me what exactly I do not see in the sentence "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.", this discussion might be more meaningful.May 27 2013: Richard,
It seems, the more I say, the more I have to explain. I never said that rhythm implies that Genesis is poetry. Neither did I say that poetry cannot give a historic account. What I meant is that rhythms and cycles are at the root of existence. They can be seen everywhere and Genesis 1 seems to emphasize it.
Literal interpretation is a figure of speech. The whole language is sybmolic. Words are symbols. Without metaphors, you would not be able to "see" what I mean and I could not "make any points".
I don't know if it is possible to interpret the Bible literally. Most of the Christ's teachings are given in parables and Jesus himself seemed to oppose the literal interpretation of the law ("Sabbath for the man" Mark 2:27 and regarding hand washing in Luke 11:37-41)
So, as Christians, let's shun the "dodgy behavior" and try to take the Bible literally. Have you gouged your eye and cut off your hand yet as Christ advised in Matthew 18:6-9? Or have you not looked at a woman with a lustful eye in your life? How many Christians do you know who have "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake"? (Matthew 19:12) Do you allow women to speak in your church? (1 Cor 14:33-35) And before you judge my behavior as "dodgy", why don't you read Matthew 7:1 first?
Tell me, who created the Chrysler building? Walter Chrysler? Yes, it was built according to his will. William Van Alen? Yes, it was built according to his design. But I doubt that either of them laid a single brick. Any "creation" is metaphoric. Check out this video http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html and tell me who created the pencil? It can be said that pencil was created. It also can be said that "pencil evolved". Both statements are correct in their own way.
I have no problem with belief that "God created the world in 6 days", but I cannot interpret it "literally". I do not know what "literally" literally means.May 28 2013: Chris,
Thanks for the detailed explanations. Quite interesting. Although, I am not as familiar with Kabbalah as you are, I agree with your main points - that "light" and "darkness" represent the difference between "order" and "chaos" or "clarity/faith/knowledge" from "uncertainty/doubt". The symbolism of taking bread inside our body as a symbol of internalizing the wisdom of Christ was also fairly clear to me.
In this context, the big bang theory is a mere physical explanation of how the universe appeared. As we go back in time, the closer we get to the big bang, the less we can say about the universe because at some point, the concepts of space and time and the laws of physics lose their meaning. It's meaningless to say that "the universe appeared according to the laws of physics" because there were no laws of physics prior to the Planck time "after the big bang". According to quantum mechanics, time and space intervals smaller than Planck time and Planck length cannot be defined, in principle. It appears to me that the universe started not at "time 0", but at "time 1" - the first tick of the quantum clock. Before that, there was no time to talk about.
So, in my understanding, creation of the universe is not to be understood as "everything from nothing", but rather "certainty/law/order" from "chaos/uncertainty". I don't see any contradiction between this interpretation of creationism and science.
I thought, "pineal gland" is called "pineal" because it has a shape of a pine cone. Where did you get this relation to the Hebrew word "Peniel"?
I don't think that Kabbalah can be called "science" in a sense that TED board would approve.
We agree in one point - that when we read Bible, we cannot take literal meanings of the English translations. We need to unravel the symbolism contained therein. What would you answer to Richard, then? It appears, he advocates literal interpretation of Creation story although I don't understand how this can be done.May 29 2013: Re: "It's taken modern science over five thousand years to "discover" that which has been lying dormant beneath the story level of holy doctrine for many millennia."
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
Ecclesiastes is my favorite book of the Bible.
You seem to interpret science too broadly. What most people understand by science today is knowledge established using a certain method meeting certain criteria. These criteria include experimental verification, peer review, etc. Biblical truths do not fulfill these criteria. I'm not saying that they have no merit or value. Wisdom is frequently counter-intuitive, self-contradictory, and often goes against the so called "common sense" (e.g. "love your enemy", "turn the other cheek") or everyday experience. I still believe that teaching religious wisdom does not belong in science class.
Jan Northrop
May 18 2013: Creationism is only destructive to critical thinking if it is taught as SCIENCE. In my opinion it would be very useful to teach not only Christian creationism but the creation myths of the other religions of the world in comparative religion or mythology classes. These beliefs (or rather the believers) have as much - if not more - effect on our daily lives as science does and deserve study and respect.
- +2
May 20 2013: I agree up to the last word. There we may differ depending on what you mean by respect.
I respect freedom of religion and people's right to their religious beliefs and express these.
However, specific religious inspired beliefs and ideas themselves should stand on their merits.
I respect people's right to believe the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old. While I recognise creationist beliefs/ideas are important to many people, the belief itself does not warrant much respect in my opinion given the evidence we have to the contrary.May 16 2013: The US education system is ultimately a question for US citizens.
We don't have such a powerful evangelical young earth creationist lobby group in Australia or New Zealand. I would object to special religious interest groups subverting science classes in state run schools here.
Science alone should be taught in science class, not creationism or intelligent design in my opinion.
Teaching the controversy is just an excuse to undermine science where it conflicts with their religious beliefs. They aim to slip in something more compatible with their beliefs alongside science as though it is a legitimate scientific alternative – which it is not.
ID is just creationism in disguise. Life is complex. Humans seem to have evolved to be more comfortable assuming supernatural agency for things they don't understand. Earthquakes, Famines, lightning, floods etc.
If you think about it, proposing a supernatural creator or intelligent designer is not science at all. It's just saying we don't think life could have evolved this way by itself (and the bible confirms this), something supernatural must have magically done it. No evidence of supernatural creation or mechanism proposed or testable. Magic.
ID suggests adaptation due to natural selection is actually design, and ignore the crappy design elements. The biological similarities say for all primate, then mammals, then veribrates, and so on apparently not evidence of common descent. Rather it is design efficiencies with an overlay of micro evolution within kinds (whatever a kind is). Apparently the creator made a lots of different life forms. Most went extinct in the last 6,000 years and a few families survived – vertibrates, insects etc. Here are some examples in biology ID asserts could not have evolved and are irreducibly complex e.g. bacterial flagellum, the human immune system etc. All of which have been debunked as precursors to these have been found.
ID is simply an argument from ignorance. It has no scientific credibilMay 14 2013: Bernard,
Thanks for the invitation to weight in the topic at hand,
For starters Creationism aka Intelligent Design (ID) is being pushed by the Discovery Institute and others. ID has nothing to do with Science and all to do with marketing:"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science," professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley. "It's about religion and philosophy."(http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html) it's all about the so-called theistic realism to replace methodological naturalism(Scientific Method) in order to accept supernatural explanations as a norm. Also take a look at the "wedge strategy"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy#cite_note-forrest_wedge-24).
I gather that their goal is to keep God(s) in the classroom in order for USA not to loose its moral compass, and to make peace with the right wing evangelicals.
ID is a gimmick that looks for dumb politicians in order to creep into the classroom instead of doing the hard work that the scientific method entails, is intellectual laziness.
Bottom line creationism aka ID is not science what it is indeed is really bad education, there is no credibility to it in the scientific community at large and to fix it we need more forums more proper information for people to make informed choices. And that said, religion provides comfort in a fantasy land that science cannot touch.
That 46% of Americans believe in creationism in one form or another is truly a shame, it makes us look ignorant , it is really frightens me that so many people believe in outdated , dis-proven ideas. Add to that number a 20% illiteracy rate and it gets darker, when that 46% wants political control to influence the other 54%. .
The case for evolution is overwhelming and is the basis of modern medicine in many ways, ID is useless, It should not be taught in the classroom as "science", is a waste of time from that point of view.
"Educate to dumb down"
May 14 2013: I agree.
However what happens if the politicians actually "agree" with it as well?
Did you read that article I posted in the description, on the other debate. I'll put it here again :
(Skip to chapter V : "We've Evolved to be Creationists").
Luckily I have never experienced the "creationism" problem. (Considering I live in the UK!) :-)
Kind regards,
May 16 2013: Hi Bernard,
Thanks for your comment (below).
"Surely you "could" argue that the "God(s)" work through Volcanoes?"
Surely you could. But that shows that you can move those gods from one place to another, only confirming that they are subjects of your imagination.
"Also you could argue that the "God(s)" put these "agency detection" mechanism in us."
Which would come to prove again that the gods are subjects of your imagination. More to the point, a "detection" mechanism that makes us mistake almost everything for a god would lead us to conclude that gods are imaginary. :) And let's not even talk about the side effects of such beliefs, which tend to be quite contrary to leading us to believe that the gods are real at all. If we all share a detection mechanism, rather than a tendency towards superstition, then such mechanisms are so faulty that we end up thinking that we have the right gods on our side, and that whichever gods others have are imaginary (how convenient), or the wrong gods, the evil ones, and a long et cetera that I have no time to keep writing about ...
Trying to accommodate for gods thus confirms that they are subjects of our imaginations.
May 16 2013: Nice reply.
Yet I'm still unsure as to whether they are completely "part of our imagination".
"But that shows that you can move those gods from one place to another, only confirming that they are subjects of your imagination."
I'm not altogether sure how that logic follows. God(s) should be able to move from one place to another (considering they are meant to wield extreme power), you could argue all the different perceptions of God(s) were just everybody perspective of the same "deity(s)".
"Trying to accommodate for gods thus confirms that they are subjects of our imaginations."
Not at all. If argue for your existence (or against = solipsism) does that suggest you are just part of my imagination? Maybe you are, maybe your not. :)May 16 2013: Hi Bernard,
You are welcome to present any evidence that gods are not imaginary. I know you are mostly "agnostic," but I see no reason why we wouldn't be so sure that gods are imaginary. After all, you keep showing evidence that they indeed are.
When I said "move gods from one place to another," I meant move them from being the volcano to act through the volcano. This shows that they are the objects of your imagination. If to "prove" that they exist you have to change what they are from one phrase to the next, what are you doing if not imagining different gods each time?
Yeah, after the fact, after realizing that you are imagining different gods and kinds of gods (why do you insist on the capitals if we are talking about gods in a generic form, rather than about some actual being whose particular name is "God"?), you start claiming that maybe the "errors" are differences in perceptions of what these gods are, then I would insist that such post rationalization only comes to show how sophisticated you are willing to be in your imaginations. You just imagine new attributes, new characteristics.. As I said below, you prove nothing more but how vivid your imagination is. Be my guest, but that does nothing for gods, a lot for my claim that they are imaginary, and a lot for your imagination, which I will be happy to applaud.
At least for my existence you have something to show that cannot easily be attributed to much else but a person. I am writing in English (kinda), have to be typing, et cetera. Yes, imagination takes place too, but you have more to go for it than just that. It is not how much you ignore about typing, English, and such, but how much you do know about those things that would give you support for the thesis. With gods the support is ignorance. It does not help that gods reside nowhere else but in our imaginations, exactly in the same way as other characters that you would agree are imaginary, like Harry Potter.
May 17 2013: Hmm.
It seems basically what you are saying is that you accept that you are more probable than a "God"/"gods"/"God(s)". I ask you what makes you more likely than a "God"?
For instance you typing could just be part of my imagination? :-)
And I give you attributes, which I can't be certain of. To help me (unconsciously) learn about you, and make more sense...
Just because something is in our imagination does it mean it doesn't exist? This is my point when I ask people to define (or describe) what they mean by existence.
Considering you mentioned it, to quote from Harry potter : "of course it's happening inside your head harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"
Bernard.May 17 2013: Hi Bernard,
Oh, no, I am in enough of a position to assert that this is not a question of probability. I am real, gods are merely imaginary. I am not just more likely than a god. If you can't tell the difference, then you have a big problem, perhaps with your metaphysics.
You say that my typing might be just part of your imagination. OK then, do you hear gods talking to you? Do you see them jumping around? Do they interact with you? Do they transform things for you, help you walk on water? Do they make the volcano erupt in ways you cannot but conclude that they did it?
If nothing of that sort happens, then your imagination is quite selective about what it lets you imagine as if it were real. Do you see any differences between what your imagination allows you to believe to be real and those things called gods? If you do, then that should indicate you that there's a solution to your problem, shouldn't it? That there might be a profound way in which you might recognize what your senses are perceiving from what is just a product of your imagination. I can't offer you a full treatise on metaphysics or epistemology, but that should work as a start. Think about it.
P.S. Of course, what happens in our heads is "real" in a way, something is happening there. But that does not mean that because we can imagine a god, then such god will materialize out of our imaginations and become an entity independent of our imaginations. That does not mean that we should start thinking that anything we can imagine has some probability of being real, and that a real person is just "more likely."
May 18 2013: I agree you are "much" likely than a "God".
However you main argument seems to be that God is just part of a our imagination therefore we should assume it definably doesn't exist...
Actaully it would be better if you went on to my debate :
"What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?"
Link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/18230/what_theological_implications.html
Also to confirm God doesn't exist, 1st you need to define God in a way it can actually be tested. If not (due to their being no evidence either way) I remain an agnostic.
Kind regards,
P.S Cya at the other TED Conversation!
Wil Hunt
May 14 2013: "it makes us look ignorant, it is really frightens me that so many people believe in outdated , dis-proven ideas."
- +1
It's one thing not to believe in creationism or intelligent design, but another to suggest that science has furnished irrefutable answers to the God question.
We not only "look ignorant," we are ignorant as to the nature and specifics of our beginning despite the theories floating among scientists.
What "frightens me" more is this willingness on the part of some humans to acquiesce to science that which it hasn't proven, satisfied that if it doesn't have the answers now, that it will in the near or distant future.
"The case for evolution is overwhelming."
Yet, evolution doesn't answer the larger question, "How did life begin, and did that beginning generate from an intelligent or non-intelligent substance?"
"Educate to dumb down"
Perhaps it's just the opposite, "Dumb down to educate."
May 15 2013: Wil,
I would agree that science alone might not answer "the gods question." Philosophy, science, and history seem all right though. Gods are anthropomorphisms. The product of human tendency to assign human-like agency to the unknown. They are compounded and confounded by our tendency to make up stories and build upon stories over stories. To our tendency to gather around myths and make them even bigger. Gods are imaginary. However, we have to look beyond evolution. Evolution only shows how the diversity of life arises. The most it does, is prove that gods imagined to have brought about each species by puffing them into existence independently are false. But other gods are left untouched. Geology and vulcanology in particular show that gods that are personified in volcanoes are false. Philosophy helps because so many gods are filled with contradictions and nonsense. But anthropology and history show quite well that gods are the anthropomorphisms I was talking about saving us the time to check whether some scientific discovery proves some god or another false.
Of course, people wanting to believe can take refuge from all of that by moving their gods into the realms of the still unknown, or even claim that their gods are behind something that might never be solved. But I see no difference between those who did not know what a volcano was, therefore it was a god prone to anger, and those who take refuge behind the problem of the origin of life, therefore god(s) did it. But be my guest. Believers can go further and change their gods' properties to make them "unassailable." Beyond the reach of logic, reason and science. But what does that prove other than the vivid imagination of the believer?
Wil Hunt
May 15 2013: "and those who take refuge behind the problem of the origin of life, therefore god(s) did it."
- +2
Here's my point again: If science is willing to posit that life and intelligence resulted from non-life and non-intelligence, then science is in no better position than the religionist to assert the origin of life.
Without the existence of life, there would be no evolution, giving those who believe in intelligent design and an intelligent designer as much claim to the answers as science.
And, too, there's been an evolution of our notion of God, from one that is anthropomorphic to one that is omnipresent, and omniscient.
Yet, don't rule out gods, as we're dealing with an aspect of God that is beyond this conversation, and would only serve to broaden the conversation beyond its present parameters.
"Believers can go further and change their gods' properties to make them "unassailable.""
And of course, science would never do that. There are as many taboos in science as in religion, where those in the scientific community would be ostracized, if not outright excommunicated, for holding certain theories, or publicly attacked by their peers for challenging certain widely-held scientific positions.May 15 2013: Great reply by the way! :-)
Yet my only question would be :
Surely you "could" argue that the "God(s)" work through Volcanoes? In the way science (geology and geography) gives us the method the "God(s)" (or the "how") work out their will. Also you could argue that the "God(s)" put these "agency detection" mechanism in us.
I mean it would be very odd if these God(s) created us, without the ability to realize they existed. (If they wanted to use us that is!).
Bernard.May 15 2013: Wil,
That is the gist of science that the answers are not irrefutable indeed they are, (God(s) are not) Science is falsifiable, thus allows for continuous correction and growth , religion does not.
As to how humans came to be and our universe , there are natural explanations that cover those without using "magic" , the "creator "does not answer any questions au contraire and once accepted it poses more complex questions, ie who created the creator, hold on, no- one created the creator because the creator exists beyond space & time and is self caused, Wil I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell if buy that special pleading! Indeed yes it is an ignorant assertion to postulate an impossible being as the originator of everything!
Just because Science doesn't answer every question to a 100% satisfaction ,is that by default evidence for God(s)? (a difference between not known to not unknowable). Take the last 200 years of history and see the advances that Science has covered, Wil diseases that are now treatable, space flight, etc has Science answer all , no has ID served mankind as evolution have ( medicine, genetics, agriculture etc) NO!, Yes "think-tanks" peddling ignorance are frightening!
Wil you are partly correct: evolution does not explain how life began. But that is not the aim of Darwinian evolution; all natural selection requires to work is that there is life, variability and competition. Criticising evolutionary biology for not explaining how life began is like criticising the kettle for not making good toast.(try Abiogenesis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis to broaden. your quest). All this said I respect every person's right to negate the Overwhelming , copious amount of over 150 years of Evidence for evolution. And if tomorrow morning evidence that puts Darwinian evolution belly up surfaces, Let it ring loud & clear! Science is hard work not platitudes, not pulling miraculous beings out of thin air. Question everything!
Wil Hunt
May 15 2013: "Science is falsifiable, thus allows for continuous correction and growth , religion does not."
- 0
That's arguable, be it science or be it those who believe in the existence of a God.
"As to how humans came to be and our universe , there are natural explanations that cover those without using "magic"."
And that's my point, again: The scientific "explanations" are as "magical," as you call it, as those derived from religion. You can dress it up with a scientific overlay but it requires as much faith to accept spontaneous self-generating matter that's both lifeless and mindless creating life and intelligence.
"has ID served mankind as evolution have ( medicine, genetics, agriculture etc) NO!, Yes "think-tanks" peddling ignorance are frightening!"
This is only true if you're willing to arbitrarily separate intelligent design from other natural phenomenon. What's "frightening" is what science has created right along with "medicine, genetics," or what have you, providing the means for our self-annihilation, nuclear bombs, and a host of other biological weapons and the means to deliver them.
"Criticising evolutionary biology for not explaining how life began is like criticising the kettle for not making good toast."
Actually, I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that we've put the cart before the horse. We had to first be created before the forces and mechanisms of evolution could be employed. As a result, until the question of our beginning is irrefutably understood, we won't fully grasp evolution.
And for "abiogenesis," this is not my first discussion of the origin of the universe, nor is the subject of abiogenesis unfamiliar to me. I still say it smacks of the supernatural.
"Science is hard work not platitudes, not pulling miraculous beings out of thin air. Question everything!"
Again, that's arguable. But I find, rather, that science has busy itself in an attempt to explain away, not only our beginning, without positing a God, but God Itself.
It woMay 16 2013: Wil,
"If science is willing to posit that life and intelligence resulted from non-life and non-intelligence, then science is in no better position than the religionist to assert the origin of life."
I don't see why. That you don't understand, or have neither studied nor reasoned this carefully enough does not mean that a scientific position is "faith." I don't see anything strange about life coming from non living stuff. After all, we see it all the time. I can produce a completely lifeless broth. Introduce a few bacteria, and then the broth transforms into billions of bacteria. That's non-life becoming life no matter how much you try and twist it. There's no intelligence involved either. That this process is catayized by a living organism does not change the facts: non-living stuff gets into being living stuff. So, for life to originate originally, all we need is something to catalyze reactions that might lead there. Maybe many somethings. And we know of many things in nature that catalyze reactions.
There's much more to the origin of life than that, and we are yet to get a complete picture. But I see no reason why you would think that proposing that life arose from the non-living, or that intelligence arose from the non-thinking, is based on faith, other than because you have not thought about it and have not looked at any of the work around those things.
However, you had nothing in your answer but what I already mentioned: mysteries filled up with gods. Mere anthropomorphisms: because we use intelligence to do stuff, everything is done by superhuman intelligence. The nowadays equivalent to volcano gods.
Gods evolved into omniscient and omnipresent are still anthropomorphous. Humans only much bigger, wiser, powerful. That we have evolved them does not deny their humble origins in those myths of old.May 15 2013: Carlos, I only have a few minutes to respond, so I just wanted to point out that it will help to distinguish between creationism and intelligent design. They are vastly different ideas.
May 15 2013: Cliff,
ID is the brainchild of the Discovery Institute, they do declare that they are indifferent to religion at every turn They have no choice. Their mission is to destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America, and they can't do that if they are obviously driven by religious motives. That's why you see them conceal the theological basis for their beliefs when they are talking to a governmental group. Which is the point of this debate , ID folks and those supporting -Do not care about Science, or the "so-called weakness in DE" or "critical thinking" They want to hear that their religious views are right. They're also the strongest base of support for the Intelligent Design proponents. That's why you find the very same folks who deny faith in front of government professing faith in front of religious audiences:.Even YEC (young earth folks) are against this two faced nature of ID (plausible denial tactic?) ID is a water down version of creationism for legal use and consumption by the uninformed, is a tactical move By the green serpents Cliff! I sense a less than honest approach here , a moral flaw perhaps (win hooked or crooked)
Judge Jones noted in his 2005 Dover decision, "We have concluded that (intelligent design) is not [science], and moreover that (intelligent design) cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
There it is.
May 16 2013: Carlos, thanks for your response. You wrote: "ID folks and those supporting-Do not care about Science..." and "their mission is to destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America". Please be careful about speaking categorically for all people in a group. (It's akin to stating: "All scientists want to destroy religion.") And I think refraining from the phrase "green serpents" will help keep this discourse civil.
Certainly, your assumption may be correct for some. But many ID folks do care a great deal about doing good science and about good science education. They simply happen to believe that the evidence suggests an intelligent designer at work in the creation of the universe. This may be informed by their religious viewpoint, certainly. I have no problem saying that ID is not science in that it makes philosophical and theological statements. And I can agree with what Judge Jones says, as long as when he says "creationist" he doesn't mean Young Earth creationism. Many ID folks find YEC ridiculous, small-minded, dishonest, and a terrible distortion of scientific data (exactly why I suggested differentiating between YEC and ID).
Ultimately, science can falsify YEC by finding contradictory evidence, which is well-established. But if ID is simply the idea that an intelligent creator was involved in the beginning of the universe, this is something science will not be able to address, as it is not falsifiable. So, regardless of where we fall in religious viewpoints, we will always be left with the possibility of a intelligent being's existence and involvement in the creation of the universe. I'm not suggesting it should be taught in the science classroom; I'm simply pointing it out as a legitimate viewpoint that science is not able to address.
Scot Wilcox
May 13 2013: Creationism is not science. It shouldn't be taught in public schools as science because it's really not. It's not even Christian doctrine. I'm a Christian, and we know that God created the earth but we have no idea how. Personally I think you're limiting God there by saying that He had to have created it all in a "poof." God does what He wants. If He used evolution or just created it all to look like it was by evolution, it's all fine by me. Leave the science alone, and teach evolution without a religious or atheistic slant.
- +2
May 13 2013: "teach evolution without a religious or atheistic slant"
I'v always been taught "evolution" with neither slant (atheistic or religious). I just think to most people it does suggest that our concept of "God" could be explained by Evolutionary psychology... (As attempted by psychologists like Jesse Bering, Paul Bloom and Justin L Barrett. As we have discussed!)
However this is another debate entirely! :-)
Like I said : "I am fine with Theistic evolution". :D
Peter Hanley
May 13 2013: Does creationism indicate bad education? -- If it is taught as a non-metaphorical historical event or scientific theory, yes. If it is taught within the context of religious study, literature, folklore/anthropology, etc., it is indicative of a potentially inclusive education.
- +2
(If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) -- You 'fix' it by not teaching it as a scientific fact. You can teach it as a metaphor/creation story, or as a historical artifact that influences history up to the present day.
Does Creationism have any credibility to it? -- As part of a rich religious tradition, yes. Within the sciences, no.
For the record: I am not an atheist. I have read at least large parts of the Torah and some of the rest of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and several handfuls of "apocrypha." My assertions above do not denote a lack of understanding of the texts or of the conflicts between faith and science, or a lack of appreciation and fondness for religious traditions. But I draw the line at teaching things that are clearly untrue to children as part of socially organized education. As a parent, that's my job. ;-)
May 13 2013: This sir, is an excellent reply.May 13 2013: Hear hear.Jun 9 2013: Religion is not education.
Mike Colera
Jun 4 2013: Austin,
- +1
you had me until you said " The reason that people"...
Faith doesn't have to prove science. If you could prove a hypothesis of faith by science it would no longer require faith. Faith is simply a belief in a truth that cannot be proved but you know it is true. Something deep inside causes you to believe. Others can say that you are wrong because your beliefs can't be scientifically be proved.
I would ask why?
Why is it important to challenge another's faith and beliefs? Does it improve your position in belief to try to prove them wrong? I see no value in questioning another's belief. What does it do for me... other then to make me seem petty. And who is to say that they are wrong in their beliefs? Me!
Now, if someone expresses his beliefs and states that he is 100% correct and I am so wrong... we will have
a discussion.
You say that you are a teacher. So,why are you not exposing your students to all the ideas and knowledge that is out there. Are you the filter that determines what students are to learn. If one of your students comes from a religious family that has strong beliefs in creationism, is it your job to tell this student that his parents are full of crap and he/she should only listen to you? Not easy is it. That is why you must teach all ideas and not be fixed on one.


text:
Never miss out with a direct connection to our snow report via email or your mobile phone.
2015-2016 Pre-Season Pass Sale! These are the most affordable rates in the region. Benefits include add on perks and discounts.
Lookout's three terrain parks range from slightly elevated rails to high flying launches for your fun and enjoyment.....
Lookout's Prime Timers Club is an absolute blast! Come join the club, meet new friends, and enjoy the fun. Take advantage of Club discounts too!
We're surrounded by great hotels, B&B's, restaurants, and shops. Be sure to check out our Community Partners to see what specials they are offering!
Powder comes early and often to Lookout Pass. You'll never miss the freshies with a direct connection to our snow report via email or your mobile phone.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Verushka™ Barbie® Doll
When St. Petersburg's white nights end, this fashionable devushka trades the romance of endless twilight for the glory of chic, classic black couture. Perfect for snowy Siberia or magnificent Moscow, Verushka™ Barbie® doll is intoxicating, alluring, and oh so fashionable.
Fashion designed especially for the Silkstone® Barbie® doll body. Not for use with other Barbie® dolls.
For the adult collector.
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.


text:
Skip Navigation
Understanding your body
Your reproductive health
Getting your period
Getting enough sleep
Looking and feeling your best
Fighting Germs
Your sexuality
Getting help with your health
Links to more information
girlshealth.gov glossary
girlshealth.gov home
Note: Get a grownup's help with this recipe, which requires using the oven/stove.
Prep time: 55 minutes
What you need:
Equipment and supplies:
What to do:
How much does this recipe make?
Six servings
Reviewed by: Mary L. Gavin, MD
Date reviewed: March 2012
Note: All information is for educational purposes only. For specific medical advice, diagnoses, and treatment, consult your doctor.
© 1995-
About this siteMission StatementPrivacy PolicyFor the MediaContact Us
This site is owned and maintained by the Office on Women's Health in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Healthat the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
USA.gov | FindYouthInfo.gov


text:
General Information 2015 Cal Summer Academy and Camps The Cal Experience 2014 Cal Men's Soccer Record Book Quick Facts Bears in the Pros Bears in MLS Statistics Contact Coach Grimes Follow @CalMensSoccer on Twitter! Follow @CalMensSoccer on Instagram! Like the Bears on Facebook! Pac-12 Sports Report Feature on Cal Men's Soccer Buy Photos Venue Directions & Parking Info
Related Soccer Websites
NCAA.com Men's Soccer Page
Pac-12 Men's Soccer Page
NSCAA Top 25 Polls
Soccer Times Top 25


text:
By 2013, more users will connect to the internet over mobile devices that laptops and PCs combined (source: Gigaom, "Mobile Internet wiIl soon overtake fixed internet" 2010). If you don't have a mobile strategy in place, it's time to get one now. If you are not sure where to start or what to do, here's a chance to learn. Regardless of where your content lives, i.e., in a cloud or on-premise; users should be able to perform critical business tasks anytime, anywhere and from ANY mobile device. These mobile business functions can now be integrated into kicking off work flows, and even be stored as records. Powered by Alfresco's Enterprise Content Platform, ensure corporate information is protected, meets compliance regulations and provides users with an easy way to access documents anytime, anywhere from their mobile devices. Join Reva Solutions award winning mobile director, Annurag Agrawal, winner of:
(1) Rocket Scientist award at AT&T Wireless for the PocketNet launch; (2) Bravo at Motorola in recognition of significant contribution to the iUI Technology Group; and (3) Bravo at Motorola for contribution to the design of features in Advanced UI program for Android; to start planning your Enterprise Mobile Strategy with Alfresco today!


text:
John Barkley, one of our associates here at Super Chevy, just recently did a little horse-trading and ended up with a fresh GM Performance Parts (GMPP) 350ci/330HP crate motor. He is an avid hot rodder and was a successful drag racer for many years (he even has a Wally in his trophy case from winning the Stock Eliminator class at the 1983 Winternationals). John is constantly building something, and his most recent project is a '66 Bel Air that could use some more power under the hood. He plans on using the car for cruising and light track duties. Even though the GMPP 330hp crate motor would motivate his land yacht of a car just fine, we would rather have the big ship run more like a small flat bottom drag boat.
We set John loose with the task of finding a solid upgrade for his engine that didn't require special machining or messing with the rotating assembly. He contacted Brodix for one of the company's top end kits, to take out the guesswork when it comes to finding components that work with each other. Brodix combines a set of the company's IK (Iron Killer) 180cc aluminum heads with a matching dual plane intake manifold, and all the little things like gaskets and hardware needed for the swap.
The heart of the Brodix top end kit are the heads; these feature ultra casting, 180cc intake ports, and 64cc combustion chambers that allow the use of several types of fuels. All these improvements over the stock heads are in place to increase the airflow. The more air the engine can ingest, the more power it can make. There are a bunch of options Brodix offers on these heads like 58-74cc CNC chambers, and just about anything else your deviant mind can think up, so keep that in mind when ordering. The Brodix kit comes with a dual plane intake big enough to support the heads, and for a small extra fee match ported as well.
For the valvetrain, John went with components from Lunati's Voodoo line, most notability a solid roller cam. John has always used hydraulic cams in his street motors, but wanted to try a solid roller this time. The cam spec's out at 0.555-int./0.566 exh. lift, 261 int./267 exh. advertised duration, 231 int./237 exh. duration at 0.050, with a 110-degree lobe center. He coupled the cam with a set of vertical bar roller lifters and 1.5 ratio Voodoo aluminum roller rockers. John went with this combo to be safe, not knowing how much piston to valve clearance it was going to have with the GMPP stock pistons. During testing we found this cam to be too small, but more on that later.
To feed the new heads, one of Holley's 750cfm Ultra Double Pumper street/strip carbs was tasked with fuel delivery. It's a 4150 design, but has black anodized billet aluminum metering blocks and base plate, mechanical secondaries, and surprisingly enough, an electric choke-not something normally found on a double pumper. To provide the spark, a ready to run billet HEI distributor from MSD was called to action. Since firewall clearance is not an issue, going with the coil-in-cap design and modern electronics were a no brainer. To assemble all of John's goodies and tune the engine on the dyno, we enlisted the help of the Speed-O-Motive crew in Covina, California. Don't get us wrong, we made John get his hands dirty on this project, but Jeff Strech from Speed-O-Motive also got involved. It was like watching an NHRA pit crew ripping down a motor between runs.
|Valve Size
|2.02 Intake
|1.60 Exhaust


text: At Southwest Cardiology in St. George, our cardiologists and electrophysiologist are all board-certified in cardiovascular disease. We have cardiologists with additional board certification in interventional cardiology, and our electrophysiologist is also board certified in clinical cardiac electrophysiology. Our doctors are experts in the evaluation and treatment of cardiovascular diseases and heart conditions.


text:
Scosche Cases and Armbands are for iPod, iPhone, iPad and more. Our iPhone protective cases are award winning. The railKASE has won the award for the best protective case for both the iPhone 4s and the iPhone 5.
cases and armbands
Cases & Armbands
KICKclip - Kickstand Hy...This KICKclip - Kickstand hybrid Case combines protection with convenience to... Learn More
$24.99 special offer
Out of stock


text:
After the news that Kim Deal would no longer be part of The Pixies, their release of the new track "Bagboy" in June seemed surprising. But now, in an interview with the New York Times, Charles Thompson—lead... Read more »
Los Angeles' premiere music festival, FYF Fest, once took place in venues splayed across the city in its full "fuck yeah" DIY glory. Now the festival finds its home on the dusty outskirts of Downtown Los... Read more »
There's no formula for a great cover. Sometimes it's about faithfully sticking to the script written by a master and other times it's all about making the song "your own." In between those two extremes is... Read more »
Happy Holidays! Pigeons and Planes... Read more »


text:
|Recently off the Wall
Robert Charles Hudson: Above the Underground
Above the Underground is a recent body of work completed by Robert Charles Hudson, on view in the Davis Gallery from Dec. 2, 2011 to Jan. 8, 2012. Ten mixed-media works will be presented, all of them inspired by Hudson's family traditions as well as the broader African American heritage. The title of the series, of course, refers to the Underground Railroad, the term that collectively describes the effort of the enslaved to free themselves from bondage in antebellum South. The nucleus of each of the artworks is a small quilt, hand-sewn following instructions Hudson inherited from his mother, who herself belonged to a lineage of quilters. The quilts are incorporated into exceptionally vividly-rendered canvases to create richly symbolic paintings. All of the quilts, as well as their painted extensions, represent specific coded images that were once used to guide escaping slaves during their journey to freedom, such as "Log Cabin," a pattern that indicated the location of a "safe house." Just as the symbols of the Underground Railroad that inspired them, Hudson's paintings are able to convey a wealth of information using seemingly simple, abstract forms. Lovingly crafted, these paintings carry a rich history "above the underground."


text:
This profile for Kai Malu at Wailea is located in Kihei, HI. Kai Malu at Wailea industry is listed as Real Estate Agent/Manager. There are no officers listed for this company.
Comprehensive Insight Plus Report
|Learn More
|The D&B Comprehensive Insight Plus Report for Kai Malu at Wailea combines D&B's proprietary statistical scoring with business, payment and financial information all in one report.
US Company Profile Report
|Learn More
|The D&B U.S. Company Profile contains basic information such as address and telephone number, executive names and titles, line of business and SIC codes, D-U-N-S Numbers, organization status, and year and location of incorporation for Kai Malu at Wailea.


text:
Jet Airways, India's most preferred international airline has come a long way since its inception in 1993. In addition to being the airline with the widest domestic network in India, we operate to 22 international destinations across 4 continents. We enjoy a reputation of being innovators and trendsetters in the Indian airline industry.We continuously strive to provide our guests with the highest standards of service and safety to ensure they enjoy the finest experience in the skies.
To know more download our factsheet
© Jet Airways (India) Ltd.


text:
One of the high points in the development of the small-block Chevy engine, and a cornerstone in its reputation as a bulletproof power producer, is the legendary LT-1 introduced in 1970. Available as a regular production option in Corvettes that year and the following two years, the LT-1 featured a long list of power magnifying and durability enhancing features. Four bolt main bearing caps held a secure grip on the forged crankshaft. Forged aluminum pistons were pinned to forged steel rods. A generously timed camshaft, solid lifters, large valves and a 2 1/2-inch exhaust system enabled the engine to breathe freely right up to its 6500 rpm redline. An 850-cfm Holley perched atop an aluminum intake did the fuel delivery chores while a high-volume oil pump downstairs took care of lubrication. The fire in each cylinder was lit by a dependable Delco transistor ignition system.
All of this added up to a 350-cid engine that delivered a conservatively rated 370 hp @ 6,000 rpm and 380 lb-ft of torque @ 4,000 rpm in 1970.
The following year horsepower fell to 330, largely as a result of a drop in compression from 11.0:1 to 9.0:1. This reduction was required for the engine to run on fuel with a Research Octane rating of no more than 91, which was the number the oil companies were predicting after they removed the lead from their gasolines.
In 1972, the final year of its availability in Corvettes, the LT-1 power rating was again reduced, this time more as a result of a change in the way the power was calculated rather than any real change in output. Previously, horsepower was measured at the flywheel with the engine on a dyno stand. The figure arrived at, called gross horsepower, reflected the engine's output when it was fed a steady supply of cool intake air and when it was unhindered by accessories like the alternator, fan, air cleaner, and so on.
Rather than reflecting gross power the 1972 figures indicated net horsepower (also called base horsepower.) Net power was a measurement of power made with the engine installed in the car, and the LT-1's lower number of 255 base horsepower reflected the considerable power lost to all of the engine driven accessories. In 1972, as in the previous two years, LT-1 Corvettes were true tire-churning musclecars, capable of low 14-second quarter-mile times in absolutely bone-stock condition. With headers in place of the factory's cast-iron exhaust manifolds and sticky rubber in place of the OEM tires, an LT-1 was suddenly a low 13-second quarter-miler.
In the early '70s big-blocks were still available in Corvettes and cars so equipped were measurably faster in acceleration and at the top end than a similarly equipped LT-1. But the LT-1 offered one important thing the big-blocks couldn't, namely superb balance. By paring more than 100 pounds off the front end, which is where Corvettes needed extra mass the least, the high-revving small-block made for a noticeably better handling and better stopping car. As an added bonus, the small-blocks tended to run cooler, and thus avoided the overheating problem the big-blocks tended to suffer from.


text:
Browse Items: 6
Sort by:
Arnie Kronenberger - hash, live recording, 1953
Jerry Reed - I believe this recording is an example of what traveling callers were calling in 1953. This choreography is a single patter tip from a dance called by Arnie Kronenberger, from California. The dance was called with a live band in Chicago. At the end of the dance Arnie thanks the band and identifies them as the WLS Ranch Hands. (Note -…
Tags: 1953, Arnie Kronenberger, Chicago, live recording, MWSD, Ranch Hands, WLS
Around the Corner (Chicago)
View full record for details.
Tags: Carl Larson, Chicago, Illinois, journal, magazine
American Square Dance - Coronet Films, 1947
This 1947 instructional film, produced by Coronet Films, was created in collaboration with the Chicago Parks District. (Note that Lloyd Shaw's Cheyenne Mountain Dancers performed in Chicago in 1939 on their return home from their first trip east. Shaw also made a presentation to American Association for Health, Physicial Education, and Recreation…
Tags: Chicago, film, instruction, Take a Little Peek
Douglas Kennedy on American dances, 1939
Douglas Kennedy succeeded Cecil Sharp as director of the English Folk Dance and Song Society. He visited the United States in 1939 to teach dancing and to observe what he could while in this country. While he was in the south, a Smoky Mountain square dance leader, D. B. Hendrix, organized a demonstration of southern Appalachian dancing for Kennedy,…
Tags: Chicago, D. B. Hendrix, Douglas Kennedy, Nelson, Ohio, Tennessee
Southside Squares and Swersie Norris
This was a feature story on television feature-- with the video now no longer available-- about the Southside Squares, Chicago's last remaining black MWSD group and the pioneering work of caller Swersie Dumetz Norris. The Southside Squares were among the dancers invited to participate on a special edition of the Phil Donohue Show, where Swersie…
Tags: African-American, Chicago, Swersie Norris
Square Dancing Is Fun, But--Teach An Easy One First! (1940 article)
Article from 1940 promoting the virtues of square dancing and pointing out the necessity of teaching simple dances first. The author suggests:
"The art of imitation must be used in teaching the square. Take the dance apart, bit by bit, and have the group walk through the parts until they know them each by name, and they will gain the thrill that…
"The art of imitation must be used in teaching the square. Take the dance apart, bit by bit, and have the group walk through the parts until they know them each by name, and they will gain the thrill that…
Tags: advice, Chicago, Homer Davis, instruction


text:
Request More Information
Please complete the form below to have a Cintas representative contact you promptly about our products and services.
* denotes a required field
** We will populate your city and state from your ZIP code
Let us know what you're interested in.
Please check all that apply:
How did you hear about us?
Notify me of important news about Cintas products and special offers.
View the Cintas Privacy Policy
Contact Us
For assistance, choose a category below:
Cintas Sales
Ordering Help
Customer Service
Cintas Careers
Supplier Registration
Don't see what you need? Click here to submit your question.
Send all mail correspondence to:
Cintas Corporation PO Box 625737 Cincinnati, Ohio 45262
More than five million people go to work every day in a Cintas uniform including employees from McDonald's, W Hotels, Royal Caribbean and many more.
Boost your profits, productivity and brand image with Cintas commercial cleaning services — and improve the comfort and well-being of your customers and employees.
Cintas can service all your first aid and safety needs and keep you informed of changes in compliance issues.
Cintas partners with our customers to provide complete Fire Protection Solutions. Our comprehensive service and innovative technologies ensure code compliance, simplify tracking and provide financial value.
Each year improper document management costs businesses like yours millions of dollars in liability and lost productivity. Let Cintas help you choose the proper document shredding, imaging, and storage program.
Cintas is a national supplier of cleanroom supplies, with an extensive network of regional distribution centers and local warehouses.
Every year 9,600 workers — just like yours — suffer electrical shock and burn injuries. Prevent your workers from becoming part of those statistics with flame resistant clothing and workwear from Cintas.
Believe it or not, one very effective way to promote your brand is to put it on someone else's product. A recent survey found that 76% of people could recall a company's name after seeing it on a promotional product.
CINCINNATI—[July 30, 2013]— Cintas Corporation (NASDAQ:CTAS) announced that the Board of Directors approved an additional share repurchase program under which the Company may repurchase up to $500 million of Cintas common stock at market prices. The number of shares to be repurchased and the timing of the purchases will be determined at the discretion of the Board, and repurchases may be discontinued at any time.
As of July 30, 2013, the Company has $151.1 million available under its existing share buyback program that was authorized in October 2011. Since the Board authorized that $500 million program, the Company has purchased 8.6 million shares of Cintas stock at an average price of $40.43 for a total of $348.9 million. This program does not have an expiration date and will continue to be executed at the discretion of the Board. Collectively, as of July 30, 2013, Cintas has $651.1 million available under the programs.
About Cintas
Headquartered in Cincinnati, Cintas Corporation provides highly specialized services to businesses of all types primarily throughout North America. Cintas designs, manufactures and implements corporate identity uniform programs, and provides entrance mats, restroom supplies, promotional products, first aid, safety, fire protection products and services and document management services for over one million businesses. Cintas is a publicly held company traded over the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol CTAS and is a component of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor from civil litigation for forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as "estimates," "anticipates," "predicts," "projects," "plans," "expects," "intends," "target," "forecast," "believes," "seeks," "could," "should," "may" and "will" or the negative versions thereof and similar words, terms and expressions and by the context in which they are used. Such statements are based upon current expectations of Cintas and speak only as of the date made. You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement. We cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will be realized. These statements are subject to various risks, uncertainties, potentially inaccurate assumptions and other factors that could cause actual results to differ from those set forth in or implied by this Press Release. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, the possibility of greater than anticipated operating costs including energy and fuel costs, lower sales volumes, loss of customers due to outsourcing trends, the performance and costs of integration of acquisitions, fluctuations in costs of materials and labor including increased medical costs, costs and possible effects of union organizing activities, failure to comply with government regulations concerning employment discrimination, employee pay and benefits and employee health and safety, uncertainties regarding any existing or newly-discovered expenses and liabilities related to environmental compliance and remediation, the cost, results and ongoing assessment of internal controls for financial reporting required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, disruptions caused by the inaccessibility of computer systems data, the initiation or outcome of litigation, investigations or other proceedings, higher assumed sourcing or distribution costs of products, the disruption of operations from catastrophic or extraordinary events, the amount and timing of repurchases of our common stock, if any, changes in federal and state tax and labor laws, the reactions of competitors in terms of price and service, the ultimate impact of the Affordable Care Act and the timing and amount of any repurchases of common stock. Cintas undertakes no obligation to publicly release any revisions to any forward-looking statements or to otherwise update any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information or to reflect events, circumstances or any other unanticipated developments arising after the date on which such statements are made. A further list and description of risks, uncertainties and other matters can be found in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2013 and in our reports on Forms 10-Q and 8-K. The risks and uncertainties described herein are not the only ones we may face. Additional risks and uncertainties presently not known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also harm our business.
For additional information, contact:
William C. Gale
Sr. Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer
J. Michael Hansen
Vice President and Treasurer


text:
Pronunciation: megkötött
Added on: 2012-01-24 Listened: 2 timesin: ige
Pronunciation in Hungarian [hu]
- Pronunciation by Kat87 (Female from Hungary)
0 votes
Could you do it better? different accent? Pronounce megkötött in Hungarian
Accents & languages on maps
- Random word: muzeológus
Not satisfied?
Modify word:
· Add languages
· Add categories
Report word:
Is there anything wrong with this word?
Please report it here.


text:
More Images
TCM Greatest Classic Films: Holiday DVD
Sale Price: $19.99
List Price: $27.98
You Save: $7.99 29% off
- Technical Specs
- Format: DVD - Multi-film Collection
- Rating: Not Rated
- Number of Discs: 4
- Run Time: 367 Minutes
- Region: 1
- Aspect Ratio: Fullscreen
- Language: English
- Studio: Turner Classic Movie
- DVD Release Date: November 3, 2009
- Packaging: Keep Case
ENGLISH: Dolby Digital Mono
FRENCH: Dolby Digital Mono
- Color: Black & White
A Christmas Carol
Reginald Owen portrays Charles Dickens' holiday humbug Ebenezer Scrooge, the miser's miser who has a huge change of heart after spirits whisk him into the past, present and future. From sets to stars to story, this triumphant adaptation adds a glow to the season. Like Tiny Tim's benediction, it blesses us - every one.
Christmas In Connecticut
A magazine columnist totally devoid of the homemaking skills espoused in her column had better get some fast: her boss has invited himself and a recently returned war hero to her home for Christmas. Laughs, romance, holiday cheer: that's the recipe Barbara Stanwyck and a stellar company follow in this perennial favorite.
It Happened On 5th Avenue
Home for the holidays! GI families hit by the post-World War II housing crunch take over an abandoned New York City mansion.
The Shop Around The Corner
In the third of their four screen pairings, Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart engage in retail romance wrapped in the ribbon of director Ernst Lubitsch's trademark touch of wit and charm. They play bickering store clerks who are unknowingly secret pen pals. Your patronage will be cheerfully rewarded when you watch this enchanting tale.
Additional Details
- DirectorEdwin L. Martin Peter Godfrey Roy Del Ruth Ernst Lubitsch
- Primary CastBarbara Stanwyck Margaret Sullavan James Stewart More
- GenreDrama
- Release Date1938 1940 1945 1940