Diogenes lives in a barrel by the road. His only friends are stray dogs. He has a flashlight.
This Blog Mirrored at BlogSpot
All Diogenes' Lamp blog posts are currently mirrored at BlogSpot, another blogging service. If you have a BlogSpot ID, it may be easier for you to make comments there. All my Posts are identical here and at BlogSpot, but comments are not mirrored.
Because this is a new blog, we'll see which version gets more visitors/comments, then keep the popular one and delete the other.
Diogenes
Diogenes' Lamp 
Well, is it an old whiskey barrel?
Wine.
My mind is stained red with envy but then I guess you can never wear white
I’m jealous
http://tinyurl.com/c3ckbfm
but I bet it doesn’t have a kitchen http://tinyurl.com/ceg5h9m
Are you interested in taking a swing at this guy’s response to me about Archaeopteryx? He seems to think their fossils have been proven hoaxes. I’ve got fodder for him if you don’t. Thanks.
I replied to this gentleman with a detailed response. It’s now in moderation.
Great blog, Diogenes, and I appreciate the excellent comments you’ve made at Sandwalk and elsewhere.
Agree with M. Farrell.
Hey, you lambasted an article I wrote with absolutely no context as to what I was actually talking about. I’m an extremely liberal atheist, but I think hiding the influence of religion is willful ignorance, and if students aren’t told about the impact its had, they’ll be missing a huge piece of the puzzle when trying to understand the formation of Western culture. The issue at Ball State started out as a debate about whether religion should be taught in a science classroom (of course it shouldn’t), but the reaction of the school’s leadership was censor any mention of religion in any classroom. That makes history, literature, sociology and religion courses awfully difficult to teach. My article came directly on the heels of that particular development, not in defense of the professor who taught this science class. There is a distinct difference between teaching religion as fact and teaching it in its proper context as part of Western culture, and I was defending the right of faculty members to discuss religion in this way without having to be afraid they would be accused of teaching it as fact. Email me if you want more context so you can better understand what’s actually happening on this campus, since it interests you.
Kylie,
You’re referring, I assume, to a comment I wrote at Sensuous Curmudgeon here. On re-reading your words, it’s possible I misinterpreted some of your points. However, I did not quote you out of context; I just deconstructed your sentences. It’s possible I read into them more than I should have, for that I apologize.
However, you do use ID catchphrases such as “Teach the Controversy” which are not just agitprop slogans for every pseudoscience, they’re also poorly thought out and unevidenced. You don’t define “controversy”, you don’t present evidence that Hedin or any other teacher at BSU was “teaching the controversy” by that definition, or explain why “controversies” by your definition ought to be taught. Whether “controversies” should or shouldn’t be taught in science or religion class depends on how you define “controversy.” Scientific controversies should (sometimes) be taught in science class, depending on the evidence supporting both sides; but political or religious controversies should be ignored in science class unless absolutely necessary to address it, and then such things should be clearly labelled as scientific or religious controversies, not scientific ones. If you’re going to use catchphrases like “Teach the Controversy” people will misunderstand your points, as I did. If you were in a philosophy class and argued that point, I think your prof would demand you define your terms more clearly.