..innuendo.
It's his TM.
]]>So far, all that you've written since that comment shows that you did not read it.
Yes I read "Age of Reason" and you've abused it IMHO.
]]>In my mind, intelligent design is a proposition much larger than those narrower attempts at defining cosmology by certain sectarian readings of the Bible's creation accounts.
It isn't the creation accounts I'd disagree with, but the interpretation of the creation accounts that often leads to creationism or creation 'science.'
Intelligent design is not a religion as I see it. Intelligent design is related to the proposition of all religions that claim that God or gods created the universe we live (and do science) in.
Intelligent design beyond its labeling & association with creationism, is a philosophical position that doesn't necessarily rely on science for validation. And yet, if science were to develop its measurement methods to reach beyond physical things which religious persons have long labeled spiritual, a proponent of intelligent design could theoretically use scientific findings as validation. The problem: There may be some who would always label things discovered beyond the physical as categories of the physical even if they are not physical. To such persons, it is their labeling of something as part of the physical realm that obviates it from being something non-physical. Doing that is not science, but labeling.
On another level, intelligent design is the meaning that many give to scientific findings. That assignment of meaning comes not only from their belief system, but from their perceptual and brain activity that perceives signs of intelligence as part of their interpretation of scientific findings. Another part of their interpretation would also be the narrower physical aspect of the finding. It would only be the atheist assumption (itself not falsifiable) that would claim that no scientific finding can possibly point to God, merely because the atheist assumption is that there is no God before the inquiry ever starts.
]]>Is there a regional assumption of responsibility? And with that, does there come an assumption of power / control? Are Manifest Destiny and China's Five-Fingers on the Hand of Tibet doctrine acceptable doctrines? Should shared control be tied to shared aid to regions? If so, to what extent? And where some regions have more natural resources than others? Clean lines of responsibility / power complicate where participating powers wish to start making exceptions that affect the balance of power. There has to be a foreign policy status quo to shoot for with contingencies for exceptions considered in advance by great powers.
Already the G20 is talking about how to help African nation states get and keep tax revenues so they can have a tax base on which to develop. Whose region of responsibility is that? Or is it a multilateral approach in every region without assigning regions to greater powers claiming greater influence in specific regions? It kind of depends whether all or some or one of the powers wants responsibility in the region. Yet that usually means there is something in it for them i.e. natural resources.
]]>In his Aug 7th column Stein wrote that large sums of the nation's wealth had been flowing to a handful of NYC's bankers during the excesses of the mortgage loan binge.
]]>In his Aug 7th column Stein wrote that large sums of the nation's wealth had been flowing to a handful of NYC's bankers during the excesses of the mortgage loan binge.
]]>