Lợi Thế Mô Hình 4 Nguyên Tắc Xây Dựng Một Tổ Chức Gắn Kết tải về miễn phí cuốn sách

Tina Gallinaro _ina_allinaro — "In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, 'And the sun stood still ... and hasted not to go down about a whole day' (Joshua x. 13) and 'He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time' (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory." Alan Turing, 1950 This is one of the latest episodes of the struggle between those who feel that Science describes nature pretty well and those who believe that anything other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible deserves a trip to hell. I think that those who ridicule the scientific method and mock Darwin's work while refusing to read it, do not deserve to benefit from the fruits of science (such as a computer and the internet), much less influence science curriculum in public schools. I still remember how Math and Science were emphasized if only to remind us that we needed to compete with the Soviets. Until reading this book, I assumed that all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists were fine with this truce-for many years public school biology books limited discussion to a small description of evolution as "changes over time" in high school biology. I was wrong. While the book mostly focuses on the Dover trial, Humes also takes us to the nearly parallel trial in Kansas, the controversy in the Grand Canyon Giftshop (where Creationists have had some success in censoring information about the geological age of the national monument), and the pseudo-scientific think-tank which excludes any science in conflict with Christian Scripture. I couldn't be certain, but they probably conveniently ignore the scripture at the top of the page regarding the sun going around a stationary earth. The Dover Trial is full of drama and bad debate, A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st century, or Inherit the Wind, Redux. Humes shows in the Dover case how Creationism in public schools, having been defeated in courts during the late 20th century under the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment, evolved (pun intended) into the virtually identical Intelligent Design movement, to Dover, Pennsylvania among other places. Some of the most shocking moments of the trial feature the ironic displays of dishonesty which ultimately brought down the school board members who were trying to bring religion into the local biology classrooms, and had designs on bringing it into the history and government classes as well. The Dover case pitted one kind of Christians against another. Those who favored the separation of Church and State were attacked as “not Christian enough”, in a great example of how the separation of these two functions protects freedom of religion. Another surprising turn of events showed how the presiding judge, a Bush-supporting Republican was branded as a liberal judicial activist for defending the constitution. Regarding extreme religious views which by definition do not tolerate any opposing views, what are the limits of tolerance in society? The Framers of the Constitution were historically not far away from centuries of religious wars in Europe which constantly threw governments into turmoil. They saw the value of the separation of church and state to both. Back in those days religious persecution meant death. This latest version of the old Darwin-vs.-God controversy is the product of the removal of Critical Thinking skills from the mainstream public school curriculum, and the lack of a Cold War Era push towards developments in Math & Science, supported by all but the most outspoken of Bible literalists, who constantly attempt to couch the debate as "God vs. Darwin", when in fact, most religions don't require people to choose between the two. Young-Earthers might benefit from not ignoring the history of the Catholic Church's censorship of Copernicus and Gallileo centuries ago, and ask themselves why the Pope doesn't have a big problem with Darwin's theories today.

Imad Eddine _mad_ — Touching and enthralling. I was captivated.