GaHillBilly

Gern. . .

"I have a very difficult time engaging in any scientific discussion with those who hold the belief that the earth was created in 6 days and is only 5-10 thousand years old. Just sayin'."

I have lived all my life in the evangelical community, and except for my mother, I've never personally known anyone who believed that. I know some must, but I haven't encountered them personally. Who do you do know who believes that?

Or, are you just throwing that out in hopes it hits someone?

packsaddle . . .

"GHB, anyone who does not want to engage in actual science should not attempt it, degree or not."

I'm not sure what your point is. If you referring to my son's career options, my point was that in biology today, and to some degree in physics, opportunities are governed, NOT by scientific rigor or skill, but by groveling submission to the current PC notions.

Oh, just found some more fun links:

From the London Times, "Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up"

[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece ]

And, here's the SAME story, but by the more gullible reporter from US News & WR:

[ http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/14/gore-polar-ice-may-vanish-in-5-7-years.html?s_cid=rss:gore-polar-ice-may-vanish-in-5-7-years ]

(Fact checking?? What fact checking! It's Al Gore, fool!)

And on the topic of ice melting elsewhere and elsewhen -- at the WRONG time -- from Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology, via Breitbart: "Sunshine speeded 1940s Swiss glacier melt"

[ http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d1adbaecf2f1d58fb3880c64655e52ea.151&show_article=1 ]

GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

Sorry, the terms aren't clear. I should have said it better, but unfortunately, it's not a debate that has led to clarity of terminology.

Anyhow, what's currently required in most graduate biology departments is an a priori presumption of a closed natural universe. In other words even if you find, embedded in the DNA code the words in Hebrew, "I am Yahweh", you MUST assert -- even in the absence of all evidence -- that the explanation for that is random and explainable in terms of natural (ie, non-supernatural) causes.

It used to be acceptable to embrace natural causes only as a working hypothesis, but to leave open the possibility that the actual causes were not natural. All working scientists, even ones like Mendel and Newton who were devout Christians, did so. Both of these found natural causes in areas often previously assumed to be under direct divine action.

However, this is no longer acceptable. In most biology departments, senior graduate students must disavow any belief in the possibility of direct action by the God of the Bible in the physical world. I don't know whether some might tolerate direct influence by Wiccan 'spirits' or not. ;-)

Given that this excludes the physical resurrection of Christ, it appears that it is generally no longer possible for orthodox Christians to receive a doctorate in biology, no matter what the specialization. Except Behe, all of the working biologists I know of who are skeptical about the validity of the evolutionary theory are converts, and got tenure before they became Christians.

My son is still looking. But he's beginning to lean toward becoming a PA instead.

GaHillBilly

"Human's are now a virus on this planet, and a massive die off of these invasive parasites would see huge global benefits for other species, and eco systems."

So, does the solution start at home, for you? Or, do you subscribe to the currently popular ideology, "eco-hypocrisy"?

GaHillBilly

"Scientists don't talk like politicians, eh?"

Wish it were so.

The university system has changed enough, so that there are almost no niches left for the apolitical 'just let me do my science' guys.

I've had to look at this very closely over the last 12 months, because my older son is about to graduate summa in biology, and is being pushed hard to go get a PhD at UGA. The problem, which his teachers don't know about, that he's not a true believer in naturalistic evolution. He's not combative, like I am, so they haven't clued into what's going on when he occasionally drops his logic-bomb questions into some of the thorny information theory discussions about DNA.

He actually leans toward mutational evolution as a primary mechanism for species development. But, as he and I and anyone who has looked at it knows, there are NO naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis. However, to say so is NOT acceptable. He was very, very startled in class a couple of weeks ago, when one of his professors acknowledged the problems in this area.

But it appears that there's no way, currently, for him to get a PhD without swearing -- almost in blood -- his eternal allegiance to scientific naturalism. Something very like a political loyalty oath IS required, or your thesis defense WILL be unsuccessful. The lay low tactics he's used so far will not work in grad school. We're still looking to see if we can find a university program where that's not true. But what we're hearing is not encouraging.

It's not just biology.

In advanced physics, you WILL study string theory, in spite of it being a theory without evidence and without testable predictions. We've lost a whole generation of physicists to this vain (so far) effort to come up with an explanation of the Big Bang that doesn't sound so frighteningly like ex nihilo creation.

And, in the same way, in climate science, you WILL swear your allegiance to AGW. The CRU scientists in the emails are HIGHLY political. If you doubt it, I can post a link to the full files, and if that link's gone bad, I can provide you a copy directly, Beavuh. Whether the emails throw the data in doubt can be debated. But, what cannot be honestly doubted is that they show the scientists involved to be totally political.

Your hope of finding apolitical scientists in this arena is, I'm afraid, a vain one.

GaHillBilly

"On the flip side, one of the co-leaders in my daughters GS troop is "out" and has daughter in the troop. This is one of things I think GSUSA got right."

Maybe in your area.

I don't know why I hadn't thought to bring this up before. Maybe it's because so many years have passed.

But, for a number of years, long before I had any involvement with Scouting, I provided services over a period of years to a nearby Girl Scout Camp. The services put me on site, but behind the scenes in sort of an not-quite-out-of-site, but definitely out of mind way.

I never had any professional problems with them, so I have zero complaints on that score. But, the non-work experiences led me to vehemently warn friends and neighbors about letting their girls go to camp.

+ In all my years working in a service capacity, I got propositioned (heterosexually) a number of times. All but one of those occasions came at the GS Camp.

+ One of the weirdest was from the female camp director who was in a sorta 'out' relationship with a local YMCA female staff person. She caught me totally off-guard because I had assumed she didn't 'swing' that way.

+ Another senior staff person propositioned every single guy working for me that got with in range.

+ Another year, while I was working near by, a group of staff people graphically discussed -- while in the presence of a bunch of 9 - 10 year old campers -- all the things they were going to do with and to their 'significant others' during the upcoming 'break week'.

+ Other staff were hired from a nearby by 'horse camp', locally notorious for being having an aggressively all lesbian staff, and for engaging in coercive seduction of hetero teen girls at the camp. The coercion was all mental / romantic, not physical, but they were dealing with rich girls from emotionally distant homes who were desperate for someone who'd care about them. The camp also hosted an annual lesbian conference / orgy. (And, yes, I do KNOW. I've spoken to both EMT's who answered pre-HIPAA calls there, and more extensively to the guy who was their on site maintenance guy. One of the guys had taken some secret pics to show around, more for laffs than anything else. As he said, when naked, most of those women looked like they'd been laid down in the road and run over with a truck.)

+ Many other episodes still need to remain unmentioned, because they are too identifiable personally.

It's been a number of years, so I have no knowledge about whether these things are still going on. But, if you think being pro-sex among young teens is "getting it right", well the GSA camp in my area definitely got it right.

GaHillBilly

It's easy to forget that, at the base of the AGW debate, there is a real scientific question. The politics are so loud, so driven by values that have nothing to do with AGW, and so compromised by scientists who've been caught up in the politics, that it's hard to see the scientific question.

But there still is one, with 4 possible answers:

1. Given the data and tech we currently have, we can't tell whether GW is or is not occurring.

2. GW is happening, but won't affect humans much.

3. GW is happening and will affect humans a lot, but it is not anthropogenic in origin.

4. GW is happening, will affect people, and is anthropogenic in origin.

Personally, I'd guess it's either #3 or #4. But regardless, what we ought to do, depends on which answer is correct.

+ Nothing, if it's #1.

+ Not much, if it's #2.

+ Move folks, if it's #3

+ Only if it's #4, should we try to reduce the man caused component of GW, which by the way includes methane and gaseous sulfur compounds, not just CO2, and risk devastating the world economy along the way.

I just find it really scary that the folks who ought to be independent scientists are actually hugely political advocates of answer #4. Even without the CRU emails, it makes me doubt how trustworthy they are. Before we spend even more TRILLIONS of $'s we don't have, I wish we had rock solid evidence from genuinely independent scientists.

I'm afraid that we are doing so much damage to our economy, that it won't matter much whether AGW is real or not.

GaHillBilly

Y'all need to distinguish allowing girls in, and allowing gays in.

Most homeschoolers are rather conservative.

Allowing gays in would push those who are in, out, and eliminate BSA from consideration by those not now participating.

Allowing girls in -- if managed properly, w/ separate patrols etc. -- would result in a BIG increase in interest by home schoolers. The #1 objection I've encountered, as I've shopped Scouting to home schoolers, is "Yes, but what about my daughters?".

It's probably an odd thing, but going coed in Scouting would attract, not repel, large numbers of conservative home schoolers.

Also, it's my impression that some of the Euro Scout units are essentially urban Scouts. As I noted before, I don't think allowing gays in would be such a big deal if your troop is an office and gym troop.

Some folks here seem unable to see a difference between being in a classroom or gym with someone, and sleeping with them. Maybe in their worlds, there is no difference. But, the parents I know see a HUGE difference between those two activities, and do not want someone who is sexually attracted to their son -- whether it's a guy or a girl -- sleeping next to him.

It appears that some are trying to distract attention from this CORE issue by calling people names and hoping that everyone will overlook the real problems till it's too late.

GaHillBilly

Eagle92 wrote: "We had a youth on summer camp staff that was gay and was sent home b/c he propositioned several members of the staff."

-- Not imagination.

I wrote that my uncle had tried to seduce me when I was young Scout age.

-- Also, not imagination, and a good example of why YPF is needed.

I also wrote that I had repeated problems with being accosted in bathrooms in Europe, when I was 18, by guys who were much older.

-- Also, not imagination, and reasons for disbelieving the constant, "Oh, they'd never do that." Yes, some of them will.

I'll bet that there are bunches of others here who could tell similar stories, if they would. (No criticism for those who don't implied: I didn't start telling folks about my uncle till some other family members had passed away.)

I recently saw an old Buffy the V episode with my sons, in which one character is accused of staring at another because she's making him horny. He replies, "I'm a teenage guy. Staring at linoleum makes me horny!" We all laughed, because it's true.

At the very least, when I was 16, putting me in a tent overnight with an attractive girl would have guaranteed a sleepless night. The idea of being in a tent with a guy who was sexually attracted to me and that horny -- which I think is about normal for 16 year old guy -- totally creeps me out.

It creeps my 14 year old out just as much. He's friends with the gay guy at his homeschool academy, but would never get in a tent with him!

Any parent who does not have his head in the sand knows that you can NOT put physically healthy teens who are sexually attracted to each other in the same tent repeatedly and hope that nothing will happen. It may not happen the first time, or even the 10th, but it WILL happen.

Good grief, I'm in my 50's and even now, I don't want to have to try to sleep in a tent with an attractive woman, unless she's my wife! Some of you have either forgotten a lot, or have some broken junk.

Forget those basic biological facts, and "BSA" will come to stand for "Boy Sex in America"!

GaHillBilly

"Do the LDS and Catholics welcome gays into their church? Or are outed gays excommunicated? Couldn't they apply the same standards to their youth programs?"

Depends on what you mean.

I know that in the RC church, and I'm pretty sure in the LDS church, being a CELIBATE gay is fine. The standard is sex within heterosexual marriage, only. If you aren't having sex, you're fine. If you are having sex outside of hetero marriage, whether you are a single hetero or homosexual, it is a matter of discipline.

Of course, as in Scouting, mandated disciplinary requirements are sometimes ignored or proceed in ways contrary to official policy. However, in both churches I'm pretty sure that excommunication would almost never be the first disciplinary step UNLESS the person said something like, "I'm gay, and I'm having sex, and I'm not gonna stop!". Even then, I think there'd be an effort to make sure that the person really meant what they said.

There's the separate issue, of course, of personal animosity. For example, in my own case, having a homosexual uncle try to seduce me when I was a boy has not left me with 'warm fuzzy' feelings toward gays in general. Later experience only strengthened these personal feelings. Even so, I've had a personal friend who was a celibate gay person, at least till he fell 'off the wagon' and bailed on me, church, and the South. Currently, my wife works with a gay elementary school teacher who she and I both think highly of in many ways . . . though we wouldn't leave him alone with our 14 year old son.

I'm pretty sure that not everyone in either the LDS or RC community clearly distinguishes their personal feelings from their church's ethical and disciplinary stance. But again, I think most in authority would do so.

GaHillBilly

So much of what's been published on the topic of global warming has been so politically driven that I've remained firmly agnostic, especially with regard to AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Many of the statements supporting the premise that AGW is a huge threat come from folk who are no more expert on the topic than I am.

However, a German by the name of Storch, who seems to be a genuine scientist working on the topic, recently published the results of an extensive anonymous survey of scientists who are actually knowledgeable in the field. The consensus, while generally reporting that a large majority support the AGW premise, reveals that most have serious doubts about many popular predictions concerning the effects of AGW, and that a small but non-trivial minority of scientists in the field doubt validity the AGW premise itself.

It's a long and complex survey, and it will help if you have a little knowledge of statistics. But, it's worth looking at. Anyhow, here's the link:

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

GaHillBilly

As a counter example, here's an example of one of the "We all agree, even though many of us know nothing about climate science" reports:

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-09-09.pdf

The report includes statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics on the danger posed by AGW.

My own experience with physicians -- several are personal friends -- is that they have permanently attached blinders, and know almost nothing about anything but medicine. This isn't a criticism; such tunnel vision focus is necessary to succeed in surviving the medical training process. But, in general, they seem to have the least 'general knowledge' of any group of educated folk I know. (As always, there's the exception to the rule. But, the one I know is a genius, literally, and barely had to study in med school due to a near photographic memory.

Some are comparing letting girls into BSA, with letting gays in. It's not the same

Most parents -- even in California -- don't want their children having sex on camping trips. Period. Granted, there are exceptions to everything, but I seriously doubt that you could build a BSA, or anything like it with the exceptions.

If you let girls in, it's easy to put the girls in tents over there, and the guys in tents over here, and the leaders in between. Granted, there could be sneaking around, but it would require that a tent-full of girls and another one of guys agree, and keep the secret. And, even then, it would be highly consensual. Not desirable, but consensual nonetheless.

Let gays in, and the possibility of segregating guys and girls goes out the window.

You can't put the gays with gays, because that's like putting guys and girls together. You can't put gays with straight guys, because that's like putting horn-dogs with virgins. You can't put gays with girls because some gays are 'bi' and besides the parents wouldn't put up with it.

So you're back to 'one-scout, one-tent', or a BSA that just does 'virtual camping'.

Of course, that's probably ideal, given some of goals of 'urban Scouts'!

GaHillBilly

What seems to be absent from these discussions, both with respect to the BSA and the military, is the recognition that sleeping arrangements are a core issue.

My own son attends a primarily evangelical home-school academy with a gay boy who's about 90% out. I suspect, but don't know, that he may be a refugee from the public schools because of harassment. Of course, there is no sexual or romantic contact among anyone at the home-school academy, so overt behavior is not an issue. I don't know how many other parents are aware of this boy, but I would guess the majority are. If there's been any backlash from this, I haven't heard of it.

I don't have a problem with it either, and have cautioned my son to treat this kid with respect. But, I have a huge problem with gays in the BSA.

So, what's the difference?

One word: camping! Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the BSA & GSA have joint camping trips with guys and girls sharing tents.

Why? Because any parent with more than two brain-cells to knock together knows you don't put teens who are potentially sexually attracted to each other in bed together, unless you are PLANNING for them to have sex.

But, functionally once you allow gays in the BSA, you are doing just that: putting potential sex-partners in bed together. And, the only way out is one-man tents.

If the BSA dropped camping and overnight outdoor activity, I wouldn't have a big problem with gays in the BSA. I suppose I'd tolerate it if the BSA mandated a one-boy, one-tent policy, in troops and at camp. I realize that many troops are already office and gym troops, with no real outdoor overnight activity. I suppose, if the BSA created a category for non-outdoor non-overnight troops, I wouldn't mind if they were open to gays.

But, I don't want my son bunking with gays.

I suspect some of you don't see the problem I do. But, having had a homosexual uncle who tried to seduce me when I was a little younger than my son is now affects my viewpoint. Having spent a year traveling alone in Europe, in the 70's affects it even more. I've had gays approach me on the train or in the depot many times. I've had guys bypass rows of empty urinals to take one next to mine, and then lean over so they could watch me urinate. And so on.

Other single young men traveling alone told me they had the same problems.

I realize that there are gay boys in Scouts today. But, today, in Scouts, the slightest unambiguous homosexual action, and they're out. Period.

Allow gays in, and it will become a matter for discussion when an older boy grabs or rubs a younger boy's crotch. Given the extremely ineffective and timid disciplinary actions I've seen in the troops we've been in, I would expect such actions to be handled in exactly the same timid and ineffective way. That, in effect would me that the older boy would remain in the troop, to grab and rub another day.

It is not PC to say that gays often impose unwanted sexual attention on others. But heterosexual guys do, and whatever else they are, gay guys are still guys, with essentially the same levels of sexual drive as hetero guys. My personal experience suggests that when they feel safe, gays may be WORSE than heteros.

So reports suggest that more than 10% of military women get raped or forced if they end up in non-office military settings. Put older gay boys in tents with younger boys, gay or not, and bad things WILL happen.

So, until the BSA bans camping or mandates a one-boy, one-tent policy, common sense mandates that the ban on gays remains in place.

GaHillBilly

I said I was going to finish replying, but I'm not.

I shouldn't have started in the first place. It's not what I need to spend time on right now. And, I made matters worse by exhibiting the same sort of arrogance I accused Voyageur of.

It's too late to stop when I shudda, but I can stop now, so I am.

GaHillBilly

@ Gern:

I didn't realize you were fully serious.

The UN guys seem to me to be proposing "environmental religion", not as something they personally consider fact-based, but as a tool for social manipulation. Such an attitude has a long history in Western culture, particularly since the 'Enlightenment'. But it's always been insincere, in the same manner as a school teacher who uses her putative belief in Santa Claus as a tool to manipulate 1st graders behavior the weeks before Christmas.

But, if you actually worship Nature, I have to respect your sincerity.

I will ask to to explain what you mean by "reverence", "Nature" and "worship". You are not using the words as I would, or to mean what I might, and I really have no idea what you do mean.

However, I will say that all modern forms of that worship that I have encountered to date are absolutely anti-rational, in that they express a rather pristine form of double-think, since the holders of those views that I have encountered so far all assert both (1) a pure naturalistic reductionism, in their view of science and nature and (2) a vague non-natural entity, "Nature" which is viewed as somehow informing religious moral imperatives, ie, "Save the Earth".

Perhaps you hold a view that is not so anti-rational. I don't know, because I don't know how you are using the core words involved, or what -- precisely -- you mean by them.

@ DanKrow:

I seem to recall that you are Wiccan? If so, I accept your correction, and would then modify my statement to refer to those who identify themselves as Wiccan. I gather that this may be a larger group than those who are officially or actually Wiccan?

@ Voyaguer:

You, I don't respect so much. You started off rude and supercilious, and the asserted silly PC claims like "the most dangerous animal is the human over fatted on religion". You followed that up by self-confidently piling obvious error on top of obvious error.

I don't know whether you are actually as ignorant as you seem, or if you just got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

Regardless, let's catalog your nonsense by the numbers, last first. I'll have to get to your ridiculous claim about the RCC murdering a "billion", after I've done some more checking. It's worth doing, because something similar is often claimed, though your "billion" is by far the most extreme claim I've seen.

Short version:

1. No, I knew who Shem . . . and Ham and Japeth were all by myself.

2. I'm guessing if you had *really* studied under "Ruth DeEtte Simpson", you would have learned to spell "Lewis" (sic) Leakey's name correctly. I'm not sure where you hear of Ms. Simpson, but I'm guessing that "semester", may really have been only a 'siesta' taken after reading an article about her.

3. Regardless, Ms. Simpson's chief fame to claim seems to have been the bogus the "Calico" dig where she both proved she couldn't tell rocks from tools, and also managed to bring an end to Louis Leakey's career.

4. None of Ms. Simpson's 'achievements', or even her curatorship of the "Gene Autry Museum of the West" exactly qualified her to speak expertly about ancient Middle Eastern texts.

5. I've read both the Gilgamesh Epic, and the account of Noah several times. If you had done so, you'd have known that the two accounts share features, but are not identical. The oldest copies of the Epic are older than Genesis, which is interesting, but not proof of anything. Many, maybe most, old cultures have flood stories. Even the Aztecs had a flood story. But, even though Genesis preceded the Aztec stories, I doubt they'd "plagiarized" theirs from Genesis!

Long version:

1. No, I didn't Wiki or Google for Shem's name, nor for the connection between Shem and "Semitic". I not only knew that, I also know the names of Noah's other two sons (Ham & Japeth) without resorting to reference materials. I can further tell you that Canaan -- the ancester of the Hittites, as recorded in the OT -- was not a son of Noah, but was his grandson. I did, however, check Google (and Wiki) for info on the Hittites. Googling is, however, a practice to be recommended to anyone who'd like to know more tomorrow than they do today.

I have to assume, given all the obvious errors you've made, that you are not a fan of Googling, since, a few minutes with Google would have saved you the thumping you're about to get.

2. You claim to have studied under a "Ruth DeEtte Simpson", who was indeed an acolyte of Leakey. Maybe you actually did so. I have my doubts, however, since if you had, I'm pretty sure you'd have known that Leakey's first name was Louis, not "Lewis". (I didn't have to Google for Leakey's name, since I already knew that.)

3. I did Google for Ms. Simpson however, who I'd never heard of before. I feel that this was a forgivable lapse, since I don't think most people would keep up with the identity of the chief curator of the Gene Autry Museum of the West! I did discover that Ms. Simpson's primary claim to scientific fame was the infamous "Calico", noted for generating a set of rocks that may be either primitive artifacts or just rocks. Apparently, the most widely accepted opinion today is that what she was digging up were just rocks.

Leakey's involvement with her apparently brought the curtain down on his scientific career.

I had not known, previously, that Leakey through out his adult life suffered from severe zipper problems. (he could not keep his pecker in his pants). His 2nd wife Mary, who according to her obit in NY Times was the real scientist of the pair, and accused Lewis of losing it over this affair.

4. Regardless of Ms. Simpson's skills, or lack thereof, as an archeologist or curator of the "American West" there is nothing in her career that suggests that she was an expert in ancient Semitic culture or language. In fact, it would appear that she was about as qualified as I am to judge the relationship between the Gilgamesh Epic and the account of Noah.

5. Given your comments, I have to question whether you have read either, much less both. (I have, and not just today, either.) There are some similarities. But they are by no means identical. The oldest copies of Gilgamesh Epic predate the oldest dates for Genesis. This is often assumed to establish a textual relationship. But, that's only an assumption, and there's no other proof of a relationship.

It may surprise you to know that the Aztecs ALSO had a flood story. Their version, postdates the version in Genesis. If we follow that the earlier version must have been "plagiarized" in any latter version, I suppose we can therefore conclude that the Aztecs copied Genesis! No doubt, that makes more sense to you, than it does to me.

In fact, many, maybe most, ancient cultures have a flood story. There are several possible explanations, none of which fit the tired and antique 'animism to monotheism' theory, most notoriously exhibited in Frazer's The Golden Bough over a century ago. TS Eliot, who so famously promoted this text via references in 'The Wasteland', much less famously rejected it when he converted to Christianity a few years afterwards

Let me see if I can really blow your mind: the Aztecs also have a redemptive 'dying god' story, a la Balder.

For an interesting parallel version, see: http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/parallels.htm

For a translation of the 11th Gilgamesh tablet, see: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

For the account of Noah in Genesis, see:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7&version=NASB

GaHillBilly

PS: BadenP, would you be so kind as to point out where I defined "religion"? I scanned the whole thread, and while I *referred* to religion numerous times, I never defined it. It appears that any "bogus definitions" must be either in someone else's thread that you confused with this one, or else just a figment of your imagination. It is rather novel, however, to be castigated for doing something badly, when in fact I hadn't done it at all!

@ packsaddle =>

On page 4: "The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity. To do that, however, it will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency. Indeed, unless UNEP succeeds in recasting the debate, it is highly likely that the economic community will do itbadly, and on its own terms. It is already happening in the field of climate change."

The phrase, "the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity" suggests to me that they hope for a direct substitution. The words "only" and "compelling" suggest that they think it is a complete substitute.

With regards to badly written, what do you expect? It's from the ultimate government bureaucracy!

@ evmori =>

"Isn't nature God?"

"Yes"

Not in: Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahai, Jainism, Confucianism, or Taoism.

Not really, as noted earler, in: Shintoism or any of the traditional animisms about which I have specific information.

Nor in traditional witchcraft or black magic, which has always been a sort of anti-religion, attempting to manipulate -- or much more rarely serve -- evil powers.

Modern Wicca apparently is a 'big tent' that now includes some practitioners of black magic (whether the common wanna-bes or the rare real deal), as well as a 'stoner' (Nature? Wow, co-o-ol, dude!) or 'new age-y' anti-intellectual pursuit of the spiritual as 'whatever makes me feel good'. Within this category, "Nature" is sometimes 'worshiped', but just what "Nature" is, is always undefined. What it is not, is the complete collection of quantum scale particles and large-scale masses and processes that are the working materials of science.

This sort of Wicca pretty much overlaps and is indistinguishable from environmentalism as religion, and thus is more or less what I originally spoke of.

Perhaps, you have some sort of other religion in mind?

@ Voyageur

It will be tonight b4 I can respond fully to your collection of claims, but (raised teacher-ly eyebrow), 'are you SURE you want to turn it in that way??'. The "Edit" button is probably still accessible to you. I'd bet $'s to donuts that, once I check your math and some history references that your claims will prove to be embarrassingly wrong.

(Hint: etymologically speaking, "Semitic" derives from the name "Shem", one of Noah's sons. Hittites (a word exclusively from the English translation of the Hebrew Bible) refers to sons of Canaan. Whoever the "Hittites" were, and there's some debate, they were NOT "Semitic". If they had a "semitic (sic) volcano god", they would have had to have gotten him/her/it from the Israelites! )

Oh, and BTW, being a licensed plumber, as I am, is sufficient to qualify as a hillbilly around here. It's not sufficient to qualify as an intellectual.

Perhaps standards in your locale are lower? Maybe, if I moved there I could become "VaIntellectual" instead of "GaHillBilly"!

GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

@ Shortridge:

The file is a PDF: www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/unep_we_want.pdf

@ Gern:

"Isn't nature God?"

Not in any religion, except modern half-a-brain environmentalism. It's often stated that animistic religions worshiped nature, but it's far more accurate to say that they worshiped the demonic spirits inhabiting various entities (trees, etc.) in nature.

"Why mock those who believe in that, no matter what they call it?"

Uh-h-h, assuming you are serious, for the same reason you mock snake-handlers! (See "half-a-brain", above.)

A couple of years ago, my son had a college English teacher who was a self described feminist / atheist / Wiccan. It was his first encounter with a hard-core anti-Christian, and he was rather overwhelmed by the very dumbness and anti-rationality of it all. A Wiccan *atheist*??

Environmental nature-worship is sorta the ultimate form of anti-rationalism.

On the one hand, any modern environmentalist is a by-absolute-faith believer in modern evolutionism, which has at its very core an absolute faith in a radical naturalistic mechanism, and a rejection of all supernatural causes. This scientific evolutionism establishes Nature as (n)ature, a pure mechanistic machine, with no soul and no spirit(s) anywhere of any kind. Ethical and aesthetic values exist only as an artifact of various random evolutionary processes and have no particular or unique 'meaning' nor moral 'force'. Sentient volitional beings, such as men may, upon becoming aware of the random and meaningless root of all ethical values, make a personal choice to continue to acknowledge them, but this is a purely personal choice. As such, from the perspective of scientific naturalism, it's a choice neither more or less valid than the choice to become Al Bundy or Ghengis Khan.

Actually, from the perspective of scientific naturalism, the whole concept of a 'valid' choice is a mere religious artifact. Scientifically, any choice made by an organism -- whether bacterial or hominid -- simply 'is'. "Value" is also a religious artifact.

On the other hand, environmentalists often exhibit all sorts of religious-like behavior with respect to (n)ature, now called (N)ature. Among other things, they identify commands like "Save the planet" or even the anthropomorphized "Save our Mother (earth)" as moral imperatives, obligatory on all mankind in precisely the same way that traditional Judeo-Christian ethics "imposes" its values on others, regardless of what these "others" believe. The problem is that their prior commitment to scientific naturalism rules out all rational basis for such moral imperatives.

Thus, modern environmentalist are precisely the modern educated version of Kentucky snake-handlers.

@ Voyageur

"I've rambled enough on this globe to know that the most dangerous animal is the human over fatted on religion"

Yet another tenet of modernistic anti-rationalistic religion: the proposition that traditional absolutist monotheistic religions (orthodox Judaism, Islam, orthodox Christianity) are the real problem.

Unfortunately, it's not a proposition supported by the evidence, so it has to be taken on faith!

As I've noted before, the religion held by the top 4 mass-murderers (in order: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, who together murdered over 100 million, not including combat deaths) of the 20th Century was some flavor of atheistic evolutionism. Even bringing in 21st C conflicts between Islam and Westernism, the atheistic evolutionists out killed the monotheists way more than 10 to 1.

If we are going to outlaw 'dangerous religions', recent history suggests that it's Dawkins, not Dobson who should go to jail.

The very fact that such an idea can remain acceptable in 'educated' circles offers overwhelming evidence of the 'bias' of the modern press and educational process. For the idea of the 'danger' of Xianity in particular is so overwhelmingly contradicted by readily available evidence, that the only possible way for such an anti-rationalist idea to remain in play, is if the truth is actively, constantly, and pervasively suppressed.

GaHillBilly

(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

It's not new, but *I* just found it:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

It's a great analysis, by the Jurassic Park "Crichton", about how ignorant urbanites, environmentalists and liberals generally have deified "Nature", without having a very clear idea of what "Nature" is . . . or what it's like.

He hit so many of the points I've made in the past while ranting about how Scout leaders with NKDD (nature knowledge deficit disorder) screw up Scouting that I just felt obligated to post the link. But, since his academic credentials (Harvard summa/pbk, etc.) are much more impressive than mine I'm sure ya'll will all agree that he's right (and that therefore, I'm right, too!).

Interestingly, an environmental sub-unit of the UN has recently and quite seriously proposed that the deification of "Nature" could allow the UN to replace all the divisive religions out there, and, oh, by the way, greatly increase both UN power and this little division's influence. The paper was apparently not intended for general consumption, but they forgot to "Leave No Trace" and it got caught up in the coverage of the CRU emails. If anyone's interested, I'll find that link too.

Enjoy!

GaHillBilly

RememberSchiff wrote:

"GAHB - Some of us think in pictures."

You're right, of course, that some do think in pictures. I should have remembered, because though my older son and I both had chemistry in college, he's much better, in part because somehow he 'sees' those molecules and proteins. But, he still has to communicate in words, and all the wild gesticulations he's prone to, as he 'draws' the molecules in the air, don't really help much.

And you are entirely correct to note that not all experts -- who possess real skill or knowledge -- also teach well.

On the other hand, NONE of the highly trained 'teachers' who lack subject knowledge or skill can teach well! This includes fully Wood-Badged, completely EDGE-trained 'outdoor skills who can't sharpen a knife, use an axe, start a fire without a 'cheater' kit, or distinguish a cardinal from a robin!

I'll take the untrained experts over the unskilled 'teachers', every time! The experts, at least, have a chance of success. The 'trained teachers' who lack subject knowledge have NO chance.

Get Outdoors asked:

"Does anyone know if they are permitted by National to make these types of changes?"

An interesting question, with more than one relevant answer. I'm sure you'll get the correct 'official' answer from many others.

But, I've seen enough Scouting now to offer another answer, that may be equally relevant: a troop, or district, or council can do ANYTHING that someone doesn't stop them from doing! In my area, troops do all sorts of things that violate national and/or council policy. And, they "enforce" all sorts of rules that 'violate' national's documents.

So, I've gradually realized that that may be the most important answer to your question. In your specific case, your council can, and probably will, continue doing as they are till someone confronts them and possibly forces them to stop.

This could be seen as a weakness, or a strength. B-P explicitly wrote of his preference for minimal oversight of the patrol and SM. Of course, he didn't always act accordingly.

But, some of the best troops I've heard of seem to operate around the edges of the regulations and local council precedents, keeping low on the radar precisely to avoid the sort of confrontation that tends to be a mess, no matter who 'wins'.

Again, in your case, I bet if your troop quietly submits more than 5 MBs from a single counselor, and says nothing, no one will notice. In this area at least, they can't even keep up with the data entry they are supposed to do. Trying to create, and then run, custom data reports that would detect 'violations' of your council's policy would be utterly beyond my local council's skills or time allotment!

I'd guess the only time your council has ever noticed violations would be when one or more boys submitted MB completions of 5 or more MBs all at the same time.

So, don't do that.

GaHillBilly

Fscouter wrote:

"More proof that training is worthless. Or rather perhaps that training is worthless if don't want any value from it."

No, more EVIDENCE that misguided or out-of-order training is worthless. The difference is distinguishable by those who are not trying to dismiss criticism with careless sarcasm.

"Proof", like "pregnancy" is not a matter of degree. You either are, or are not, pregnant. There either is, or there is not, "proof"*.

The difference matters because people not only speak in words, they think in words as well. Sloppy word use not only renders precise communication impossible, it renders precise or correct thinking impossible as well!

GaHillBilly

* In logic and language, as in geometry, it is sometimes possible to have multiple distinct proofs of the same conclusion, but plurality (more in quantity) and degree (more in quality) are very distinct concepts.

Granted, many people seem unable to grasp that something may well be evident, and yet not proven.

acco40 wrote:

'While I don't dispute anything in your post, please remember that Wood Badge and EDGE are not "scout skills" type courses but more "process" type courses.'

Of course. I noted this myself. And there's nothing wrong with process . . . as long as there is SOMETHING to 'process'.

But, taking Hamlet out of context, "aye, there's the rub". Given the sort of leaders and Scouts we've encountered, there is NOTHING to process, because they don't have the skills and knowledge that the Scouting EDGE proposes to teach! And everything I've seen suggests such Scouts and such leaders are far from uncommon, and may even be the majority. No one was horrified, here, when GWB a year ago suggested that knowing that there were "big rocks" and "little rocks" and "rocks that might hit me" was sufficient, and that knowing more was irrelevant to Scouting.

This attitude is light-years away from BP's 'there's a right way to do things, and Scouts should know that way'. (Approximate quote -- I didn't look it up.)

That's why I said the method should be "(K)EDGE", not "EDGE". For Scouters and Scouts who actually possess the requisite skills and knowledge, they can learn just the method, without any need to learn the skills.

Unfortunately, for the sort of Scout and Scouter we've met in our area, it's either (K)EDGE or it's bogus. I'm very much afraid that, without a focus on the missing (K)nowledge, the EDGE program is going to take the BSA further down the path of smoke and mirrors without substance.

GaHillBilly

Early in this thread, it was stated that it was the "trained leaders" who were "myth-busters". I'm glad that is true in your Council, but it most definitely is not, in my area. At OLS, we were taught by Wood-Badged trainers that:

1. sheath knives were prohibited,

2. patrols could not camp alone (I provoked this, by asking),

3. and, that liquid fuels were not allowed.

In addition (and I'm holding grudge about this one), I let the Wood-badged knife / axe trainer demonstrate knife sharpening on my 15 year old 'I won't leave the house without it' Gerber EZ-Out. It was useless for the rest of the trip, and it took me an hour on return to repair it!

Likewise, in my son's first troop, he was taught by his Wood-badged SM that Scouts could never sleep alone. BTW, this same Wood-Badger could not whip rope or tie any knots besides the square knot, the bowline and . . . TA DA! . . . the one-handed bowline, which is apparently a Wood-Badge specialty in this area!

On the other side of things, while there is no EXPLICIT requirement that "you are retested for every requirement from every previous rank and you can fail the Eagle SMC by doing the clove hitch wrong", the new EDGE training requirements come close to mandating this IMPLICITLY.

The reason is simple: EDGE is just a new mnemonic for the original Scout practice that 1st Class Scouts teach the skills . . . but with a serious omission. The COMPLETE mnemonic would be (K)EDGE: (KNOW) => EXPLAIN => DEMONSTRATE => GUIDE => ENABLE. Without (K)nowing the skill, EDGE is just a tool without a task!

One of the last classes I taught, before my son & I gave up on troop scouting within driving range of our home, was a ropes and knots class focused on the under 1st class troop members. As was his practice, the most senior (and now, Eagle) Scout in the troop was sitting back, sniping, and distracting other Scouts. So, in my tender hearted manner, I had him come to the front -- after spending a couple of minutes explaining how basic the square knot was, and how many times a senior Scout like our erstwhile Eagle-candidate would have used it -- and demonstrate the correct method.

I let him fumble helplessly up front for 6 or 7 minutes, offering just enough help to keep him going before returning him to his seat, and having a Tenderfoot, who I had taught a week before, demonstrate it. Two weeks later, the then SPL, up for Star, told an outright lie during his BOR about having learned to whip rope. Unbeknownst to me, he had promised to do so, in exchange for a pass on his 1st Class BOR. Earlier that same evening, we had taught whipping, but he was too senior to pay attention.

While I know that some senior Scouts in some troops have real skills, I also know that the situation I encountered, of eager junior Scouts being stalled and sidetracked by skill-less senior Scouts, is not rare. As bad as that troop was before, I cannot imagine what it will be like when the Scouts have to fake skills, during mandated EDGE training, they don't possess as they 'teach' the junior Scouts.

GaHillBilly

I didn't intend this to be a post about LNT, and I regret that my grumpiness got away from me.

But, I also regret that my grumpiness gave y'all an easy way out, and allowed you to ignore the substantive portions of my posts.

The facts are simple:

+ LNT is NOT just a title; people take it literally, and there's evidence of that on this forum, as well as in my experience at OLS. My guess is that many of you can recall further evidences of this, if you'd only choose to do so.

+ The LNT interpretive statements are themselves incompatible with wood craft and junior naturalists -- BobW never responded directly to a single one of my observations; he just changed the subject.

+ LNT is not an "aspirational goal" unless you actually and genuinely aspire to achieve that goal. Merely gazing in the direction of a goal, doesn't make that a goal you "aspire to"!

+ LNT is internally self-contradictory. The mere existence of LNT "hunter ethics" is inherently incompatible with the example ethical interpretations of goal #6 concerning wildlife. LNT has all the hallmarks of being a deliberate Trojan horse: there are numerous reasons to believe that many of its developers are operating on a pragmatic, "we'll take what we can get, now" but with an 'aspiration' to actually achieve true LNT requirements later. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you'll find PETA people scattered among the ranks of LNT developers and promoters.

+ BSA committment to LNT, both as a title, AND in the more detailed 'ethical guides' is dishonest, unless you as a Scouter ACTUALLY intend (aspire!) to following it.

+ LNT principles, applied at some -- fortunately not all -- local parks and preserves prohibit all off trail activity. Of course, this is no surprise: LNT pretty completely prohibits allowing a Scout to EXPLORE a natural area

It bugs me no end that I'm going to have to teach my son that this is one of those points where it's necessary to deliberately lie, and say he'll follow LNT, even though we won't. He (and I) will continue to skip rocks; examine animal burrows and nests; catch and release crawdads, some snakes, Eastern fence lizards and skinks; stalk animals we want to observe; and pick the occasional flower. And, because we will do those things, my son and the other Scouts I work with will grow up to know, understand and love nature, not as the vague and undefined concept, Nature; but as the sum of all it's amazing details and particularities.

They will know what sassafras and sorrel taste like; and will know to look for hummingbirds when they see trumpet vine in bloom. They will know the taste of black walnuts and rare chestnuts, and why chestnuts are rare and what juglone (from walnuts) and how Indians used it. They will know that a bird is a woodpecker from its dipping flight and that another is a swallow, from its flight. When we find a copperhead, we'll observe it . . . and if it's in an area frequented by people, we may even kill it. They'll see and marvel at black widows -- even when they are white -- and learn why there's not much use in killing them, unless they are in your house. They'll avoid stepping on a day old fawn, if we are lucky enough to see one, but they will look. They'll learn that -- contrary to our LNT instructors -- touching a bird nest does not cause the parents to abandon it, and that you can often replace a chick successfully.

They will not learn, as B-P's generation sometimes did, that nature is only "red of tooth and claw", but they will learn that it often is, and that it is never, unless humans are involved, beneficent!

Because I know enough to do so, we (and the other Scouts with me) will not disturb the endangered and threatened species endemic to the places we visit. We will not create trails unnecessarily, because I don't like them, and they are usually unnecessary, since we can follow game trails.

And, because of all these things, the boys I work with will ACTUALLY know and care about natural things far more than BobW and his ilk, who imagine in their foolish ignorance that one can walk in the woods without disturbing animals.

These things we will do, and these things they will learn, because I can do them, and because I can teach them.

And if I'm forced to lie on LNT pledges, I'll do so, but I'll hate the necessity and and I'll hate y'all's dishonesty that forces me to do so. But, unlike y'all, I'll acknowledge my lie, to myself and to God.

I'm done here.

GaHillBilly

Ok, I am grumpy about this.

But, unfortunately even after you allow for my grumpiness, the problem doesn't disappear.

From an adult perspective, most of us have learned that Santa Claus doesn't really bring gifts; that drinking beer will not make me attractive to hot girls, but will just make me fat; and that regardless of who wins the Presidential race, they won't keep most of their promises because they can't.

But youth and young people are "idealistic". This means they still, to a greater or lesser degree, believe that we actually MEAN what we tell them. Over time, they discover that we didn't really mean those things.

I assure you that the young, naive Scouts who 'taught' the LNT section of OLS actually BELIEVE that they can learn, and could teach us, to "Leave No Trace". They were naive. They were ignorant. They were idealistic.

But, they were also misled, by adults who know better.

Now I know it's mostly just me. But I HATE lying to kids. And I believe Scouting stands for, or at least is supposed to stand for, honesty and integrity ESPECIALLY in our communication with kids.

I know those young adults who taught LNT, will eventually be disillusioned, and will catch on the fact that we don't REALLY mean what we say. They haven't caught on yet, some of them will buy into the lie themselves, in some cases without even noticing. But, I promise you, some of them will see the lie, or others like it in Scouting, recognize it as a lie, and blame those who lied to them for the betrayal and disillusionment they feel.

And, they'll have a valid point, when they do.

Several of you have talked about things like "aspirational goals". Well, if you "aspire" to be trustworthy in Scouting, a place to start is to get honest about LNT. Where LNT is valid, it seems to add nothing to the Outdoor Code. But where it does add to the Outdoor Code, it's mostly bogus and dishonest.

So, while I suppose I'm picking nits, I think this nit is a rather important one, that should not be allowed to grow up in to a biting and breeding louse which sucks blood out of Scouting!

GaHillBilly

Lisa, I agree with most of what you said -- and had already made the point that correlation is not causation. But I think you'll agree correlation offers a reason to investigate whether there is only incidental correlation, or if there is also causation. And, that was what I did in my original question.

BobW, your misdirection aside (quoting all the wildlife bits EXCEPT the one I quoted) if you think you can walk in the woods without causing any "animal [to] alter its normal activities" -- unless you choose to regard fleeing possible predators as 'normal activity' -- there's not much I can say that's likely to enlighten you.

You are just too ignorant. But, then I gather that that's one of Kudu's complaints, that modern Scouters know so little woodcraft, that Wood Badge can't possibly be about skills in the woods.

But, I guess you are in good company, and will fit right in with the SM who taught my son that Chinese privet hedge was actually a native plant called "boxwood", and that the river cane growing along the Hiwassee was really "sugar cane". He became pretty irritated when my son suggested that otherwise, and told him to be quiet and learn something.

So, you fit right in! I'm sure you'll be able to follow G-W's plan, and can help Geology MB candidates to sort all the rocks in to "big rocks and little rocks and rocks that hit you"

But let's take a look at the bits you did quote:

*Observe wildlife from a distance. Do not follow or approach them.

Gotta love this one. Let's see, I can either observe animals from a distance, or not. If not, then I can't observe them, since at my age, the minimum distance for focusing is about a foot. A foot is a distance, so, yep, I'm good there.

But next bit is a little more difficult. In the areas I know, if you are in the woods, you are ALWAYS approaching some animals, and often following them. Deer, commonly. Turkey, often. Robins, chickadees, squirrels, chipmunks, salamanders, always. Beaver, muskrat, blue heron, northern water snakes, barred owls, sometimes. Mink, green heron, wood ducks, rarely.

Gotta problem there. The ONLY way to avoid approaching some of these animals EVERY time I go out is . . . to not go out.

But, I suppose you use another "way", BobW. If you are just too uncrafty to KNOW that those animals are there (or were, till they heard you) you can just continue to imagine yourself in compliance.

I guess that's the new BSA LNT principle: "what you don't know, won't hurt nature"? If that's the principle we're supposed to be following, I've met a lot of Scouters who know so little there's no danger of them ever hurting nature.

Never feed animals. Feeding wildlife damages their health, alters natural behaviors, and exposes them to predators and other dangers.*

Well, I can do that. In fact, I pretty much always do so, since I'm not much of a fisherman. But, I guess I'll have to quit what fishing I was doing, since I usually use live bait, and since I always end up "feeding" the fish, a lot more than they end up feeding me!

But, as a matter of fact, the blanket statement that "feeding wildlife damages their health" is nonsense. Animals pretty routinely starve over the winter. (Maybe you didn't know that, BobW.) Last winter was pretty bad around here. This year, for whatever reason, all the mast and fruit crops are extremely heavy, so things will be better. But, I know of people who did feed deer from the park their property adjoined. Yep, I guess that "damaged their health" by keeping them from starving!

But, I can certainly agree that doing so "altered their natural behavior". Under the circumstances, the natural thing would be for them to starve.

Now, more reasonable statements than this have been around for years, with no help from LNT. When I went to the Smokies as a child 50 years ago, us kids were told very clearly, "don't feed the bears".

Protect wildlife and your food by storing rations and trash securely.

Control pets at all times, or leave them at home.*

Well, gee, I knew that one as a child, too. But, I guess all my grousing about people who camped with noisy dogs was actually evidence that I loved the LNT in my heart, and in secret, long before it was written?

*Avoid wildlife during sensitive times: mating, nesting, raising young, or winter.

Well, BobW, I gotta love it. I couldn't think of a better way to say, "BobW's a goober", than you've done here by claiming you keep this one.

Here's a clue, BobW. If you are in the woods, you are NOT avoiding wildlife. They're there, even though you apparently too clueless to know it.

And BobW, here's another clue: that wildlife you are not avoiding, is ALWAYS either mating, nesting (or denning) or raising young . . . or in winter. That's kinda how it works. In fact, if you've noticed it non-urban examples of the species homo sapiens are pretty much always doing one these things, too.

So, Mister Urban Scouter, if you go to the woods ANY time, you are violating this one, too.

Sheesh. City slickers!

GaHillBilly

(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

SR540Beaver wrote "I always find it amusing that those who are critical of the BSA program always blame Wood Badge."

SR540Beaver, before you "find it amusing", you might want to "find it"!

In this case, you didn't, because I didn't "blame" anyone. I noticed a coincidence:

1) all (or most) of the instructors were WBers.

2) a number of the instructors taught undocumented 'requirements'.

But, because I know a bit about logic, I understand that "coincidence" is not "causation". In other words, I knew that the relationship between WBers and undoc'd requirements might be incidental rather than derivatively causal. Therefore, I did the reasonable thing: I asked of those who know more about it, if this coincidence was more than that.

But -- please note -- I ASKED; I didn't blame. Under the circumstances, it was a reasonable and prudent question, since Wood Badge attendance was the apparent common factor among those adding requirements. I confess to some suspicion about Wood Badge, mostly as a result of what I've read here, but partly from observing local Wood Badgers in my District. But, suspicion is not criticism, much less "blame".

Kudu has accused WBers of being Scientologist-like in their hypersensitivity to criticism, and even questioning. It would seem you are adding a data-point in support of his contention . . . assuming of course that you are a WBer.

So, before you are amused next time, you might want to make sure that what you find amusing is actually present. Laughing at what is not present is not a sign of mental health.

GaHillBilly