mrdct

I never made such a statement. Nowhere in this thread have I expressed a belief in 'Intelligent Design'. I would suggest, that you cite in context, the snipet of my statement referred to"evolution theory". The same holds true for the evolution theory. I haven't made any statement that suggests either theory "explains it OK".

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack 'Intelligent Design' theory. But I'm equally disappointed that, by and large, advocates of 'Intelligent Design' tend to be religious nut-jobs which makes it difficult for a person not in that camp to question the veracity of the evolutionary model. Well that's a great way to advance thinking and discussion on the issue. Take the "I'm content with the unproven evolutionary model and won't give 'Intelligent Design' the time of day as it's tainted by religious fanatics.

I never made such a statement. Nowhere in this thread have I expressed a belief in 'Intelligent Design'. As it happens, I think that the evolution theory should be taught with more breadth (and breath) as there are lot of complex concepts around general biology, genetics, palaeontology and history that need to be covered to explain the theory properly; whereas the 'Intelligent Design' theory can be adequately presented quite succinctly if you leave all of the religious elements out of it. I will. I don't believe in either theory. Both are unproven theories with serious evidentiary and logical holes. This doesn't mean that either theory is wrong, and nor does it mean that either theory should be withheld from the education system. I think we now have: "established theories", "valid theories", "reliable theories", "plausible theories" and just plain-old "theories". Maybe what the kids need is to have a term or so on the definition of a "theory" and then start introducing a few to them.

I certainly agree that religious iterations of 'Intelligent Design' such as Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created heaven and earth, etc." are indeed myths as they comprise a story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form with the active participants generally being deities and/or heroes in a timeframe before recorded history began. Generalist 'Intelligent Design' theory doesn't require the identication or specification of the entity or entities involved or indeed the mechanism by which the 'Intelligent Design' was implemented. 'Intelligent Design' theory provides a plausible explanation (albeit shallow) for the significant evidence gaps in evolution theory. Acceptable to whom? Close-minded scientific bigots who refuse to give any consideration to concepts that can't be explained by known facts and require abstract or unconventional thought. I stress that I'm not calling you or anyone else in this thread a "scientific bigot".

Does an "established theory" out-rank a "valid theory"?

Flying Spaghetti Monster = Myth. Earth orbits the Sun = Fact. "Intelligent Design" = Theory. Evolution = Theory. That so many people believe the evolutionary theory to be a fact is the scary thing to me and the principal reason why alternative theories ought to be put forward for consideration. At the very least it will teach children what the concept of a theory is. I don't equate skepticism with the evolutionary model with a belief in creation under any of the various religious models. If one can separate God from the "Intelligent Design" theory (which I can quite easily) one can open one's mind to a range of plausible explanations for our existence. Perhaps aliens are involved, but that of course only removes the problem to a different point in time and space; but perhaps it can establish a more plausible time frame for an evolutionary process to take place for which on a mathematical basis I find the generally accepted (by "real" peer-reviewed scientists) 4.54 billion years is (on my intuition) far too short for a largely random process to convert microbes to humans.

It can be a fine line between "myth", "theory" and "valid theory". I guess the thing that they all have in common is that haven't been proven.

I would never suggest that creationism should be taught as a fact, just as evolution should not be taught as a fact. I'm merely suggesting that children should be made aware that alternative theories exist to explain our existence and they should make their own minds up as to the merits or otherwise of the various explanations for our existence.

Me too, but only if they ARE alternative. Creationism is not a theory. If you start to teach that you will have to include theories that a dragon eats the sun during a solar eclipse in science class, and that Zeus creates thunder. I think teaching Greek mythology to children is a great idea as it helps them understand mankind's quest to explain and rationalise our existence. The evolutionary theory is part of the quest as are alternative models such as creationism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is Greek mythology on your "Rated R" list for the education system also?

I do believe that children should be taught to not believe everything they're told, be skeptical, check the evidence themselves and evaluate the merits or otherwise of alternative theories.

Let me reformulate your statement, if you dont mind: The supporting scientific evidence makes 'Intelligent Design' only 5% reliable at best (increase the number if you like), the supporting scientific evidence makes 'evolutionary mode' makes 95% reliable at worst (decrease the number if you like). If you take the above numbers do you think both theories are equivalent if it comes to the level of reliability? I'm not sure that I understand your question. If I take your numbers, then obviously the evolutionary model is much more reliable. But, as it happens, I don't think the scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that the evolutionary model is 95% reliable for explaining how we got here. Whilst I can't completely rule out the possibility that humans did in fact evolve from little microbes that spontaneously generated themselves billions of years ago, the scarcity of evidence to support that theory coupled with the incredible complexity of the human organism, causes me to be skeptical. A theory doesn't need to be disproved to reach a conclusion that it's dodgey - case in point: the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. The advantage in presenting the 'Intelligent Design' theory to children in biology class is that they may become motivated to critically examine and assess the merits or otherwise of the evolutionary model through a process of scientific enquiry and analysis rather than blindly accept it as fact.

If I were to stumble across one of the giant statues of Easter Island I could look at it and postulate as to how it got there. One theory might be that it was just a big rock that through processes of natural erosion formed itself into an image of a human head. Another theory might be that some intelligent being, probably a human, fashioned the statue with some intent and skill. So what evidence do I have? I know from observation that erosion can produce rocks that look like other objects, indeed I once found a rock that looked very much like the Sydney Opera House. But I also know from observation and knowledge of the basic processes of erosion that eroded rocks that look like other objects are pretty rare so when I come across a rock that looks like a human head, chances are it was actually actually man-made. As the complexity of the rock's likeness to the human head increases, so too does the likelihood that it didn't arise from natural processes of erosion. Sure there is some intuition involved here, but on the basis of this "evidence" I will conclude that the giant statues of Easter Island were created by an intelligent designer, most probably a human being. I can't actually prove that the giant statues of Easter Island are man-made but the complexity of the carvings present a fairly strong scientific case that they couldn't have formed from random erosion. On the other hand, perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster was at it again.

Example? Even if one were to take it as a given that life in the form of some sort of primative microbe could've spontaneously materialised from the mystical organic soup that evolutionists presume to have existed billions of years ago, I think it's a bit of a stretch to believe that extremely complex biological structures such the kidney, or the eye or the brain could've have evolved from random mutations of these microbes. Don't presume that I'm a believer in 'Intelligent Design'. I just don't think the evolutionary model is plausible for the whole enchilada. I've got all sorts of problems with the 'Intelligent Design' theory also, such as "Does God exist?" or "Do we all have the Flying Spaghetti Monster to thank?". The evolutionary model is great to explain variations within a species and is very useful to teach kids about basic genetics, but it doesn't explain how human beings got here.

There is not a single scientific theory that can be proven. That doesn't make it any less science. And it doesn't make creationism any more science. But it also doesn't make evolution any more plausible than 'Intelligent Design' so why shouldn't both theories be taught in school?

There are a number of problems: Evolution is not a water-tight theory and like 'Intelligent Design' it can't be definitively proven. Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here. It is completely understandable why people like Pat Robertson want 'Intelligent Design' to be presented as an alternative theory to evolution in schools. Such people want to maintain market-share for their religion and can't afford to have impressionable 9th-graders fed the evolutionary theory as fact (as some teachers are want to do) with the associated risk of those children turning away from Christianity.

Seems a strange decision to me. The "just the facts" thread looked like it had good potential to explore some new ground. So far as I could see nothing rude or inappropriate had been posted (although any such postings may already have been deleted by a moderator of course). I am somewhat alarmed at Uday's update to his "hoof and mouth disease" thread that he is posting all over the place: If these threads are going to be censored, I would hope that the moderator wouldn't be doing so "casually".

Debbie, First let me congratulate you on your victory. Let me also congratulate you on your openness in contributing to this forum and straightening out a number of inaccuracies that have been bobbling along. I'm not a lawyer, but ignorance of the law tends to not be a viable defence in most jurisdictions. Even without reading through all of the relevant conditions of contest and associated documents, commonsense would generally suggest: It would be most uncommon for a membership based national sporting organisation to not have something in its constitution, by-laws or similar document along the lines of "not bringing the sport or the organisation into disrepute". I’m a member of several sporting bodies and clubs and whilst I don’t know exactly how each one words it, I’m sure it’s there for all of them. We see sporting stars in mainstream sports get into trouble for one faux pas or another on a regular basis and routinely see their sporting bodies rub them out for a match or two with or without a fine and/or suspended sentence. I think it's reasonable to expect similar consequences for a faux pas at the top level of bridge. The efforts in recent years by the WBF to get bridge into the Olympic movement are widely know, particularly amongst "elite" bridge players through, for example, controversies around doping rules. It would seem to naturally follow that at a WBF event the general "vibe" of Olympic ideals such as conducting oneself in an apolitical manner would be implicit in the conditions of contest even if you hadn’t read them. When you are in a foreign country that may, and in this case probably does, have different standards for politeness and conduct than you are used to at home, the prudent thing to do is conduct oneself with the upmost decorum and discretion. I am genuinely sympathetic to your circumstances, but believe that some sort of mild sanction is in order both for the USBF to save face and to minimise the chances of this sort of thing happening again. On balance, I think optimal outcome will be the USBF saying: "You naughty girls! Please don’t do it again - and if you do, you will be grounded for a year!" The apparent fact that The WBF and CCBA don't seemed overly concerned about the situation is encouraging. This may require you to eat little bit of humble pie, but it won’t interfere with your bridge career and will allow this unfortunate affair to blow-over. Now I can use one of my favourite puns applicable to situations where the Chinese do something wrong: "two wongs don't make a wight". Dave.

The USBF have taken-down the "Statement regarding Damage to USBF" which was probably an unwise thing to put up in the first place. Did anyone retain a copy of the text of that statement? They have now added a new "Open Letter from the USBF Board of Directors":

I just gave ipetitions.com a test drive signing some women's petition to have her dog released from the pound. The worrying thing is that after you "sign" the petition it takes you to a page where you indicate how much money you want to donate to ipetitions.com (options ranging from US$2 to US$100) and if you don't tick one of the options (of which zero isn't one) it then takes you straight to your paypal acccount (which most people who have bought anything on Ebay would have) with a US$10 donation all set up for you to enter your password. Time will only tell if they are going to use my email address to spam me. btw, it looks like someone has beaten you to it as there is a "We Didn't Vote for Bush" petition already up on the site that was created on 14 Nov: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/WeDidNotVoteforBush/

Nothing to do with me, but surely the only people that the USBF should be listening to are their active membership. If you want to influence what they are doing, become a paid-up active paid-up member.

Wasn't there flag waving and anthem singing done by any number of participants? How are these not "political statements"? I'd say flag waving and anthem singing are patiotic statements not political statements.

By what logic does that mean that clients can't recruit a professional team to contest and win the trials? The participation of, for example, the Narasimhan team, in the Venice Cup was conditional on: 1. Winning the USBF trials; 2. Satisfying the conditions of contest of those trials; 3. Satisfying any other eligibiliy criteria established by the sports governing body (the WBF). Looking at any of the individuals on the Narasimhan team or at the team as a whole, their participation in the Venice Cup was not conditional on any financial consideration. Whatever financial arrangements the individual members of the team had amongst themselves is their business but quite obviously Ms Narasimhan was able to put together a team that won the US trials and won the Venice Cup in compliance with all of the relevant conditions and criteria. There are plenty of sports, including "real" Olympic sports where having lots of money will at the very least enhance your prospects of making it to the Olympic Games if not be a full pre-requisite. Take equestrian events for example where a competitve horse costs at least US$1 million to buy and a mother-load to feed, train and transport around the world. When Princess Anne competed in the 1976 Olympics do you think she was best female equestrian from Great Britain, or perhaps she just had the financial resources and influence to procure the best horse, the best facilities and the best trainers? Similarly do you think Prince Albert of Monaco made his way on to the Monaco bobsled team on pure athletic ability? I would suggest that this By-Law is intended to outlaw the situation where a National Olympic Organisation or Sporting Federation could say, "Yes you can play tiddliwinks for the USA but only if you pay us $10,000".

In the version I linked to, page 82 is the by-laws to rule 42 (Nationality of Competitors). I still can't find any mention of clients not being allowed to pay professionals to be their teammates. In any case, I think it would be completely unenforceable for so long as a trials-based selection method remains in place.

Blackshoe didn't point out that amongst the "couple other things" that active members can do that regular members can't do is to vote. Accordingly, regular membership is pretty much irrellevant. I believe that the USBF only has about 250 active members, generally limited to the people who contest the trials. If regular members (the rank and file USA-domiciled ACBL members) really want to have greater influence on the USBF, cough up some cash and you're in. As I've said in another thread, I find the way bridge is organised in North America quite bizaare.

I've just had a read through read through the Olympic Charter (http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf) but couldn't actually find the bit that Richard is referring to. Can someone help me out?