Archaeologica.org

There you are do some reading the worst thing to hit archaeology in years thank you my AMERICAN FRIENDS. Where do you find this stuff??? cheers Terry.

"There we are" where? What stuff?

Links, mate....we want links!!!!

hopMessage: 1
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:46:49 +1000
From: Mr Stephen Nichols <s.nichols@uq.edu.au>
Subject: [Ausarch-l] Intelligent Design
To: ausarch-l@anu.edu.au
Message-ID: <50d03650f4a7.50f4a750d036@uq.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Last night, Wednesday 9 November, the ABC Lateline program ran a
substantial segment on "Intelligent Design", the latest creationist
push to discredit Darwinian evolution. A transcript of the story can
be seen at www.abc.net.au/lateline/default.htm. Amongst the (mostly
familiar) claims made are that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (the
old 'Usherian' view) dinosaurs and humans co-existed, dinosaurs were
on Noah's Ark and that a literal reading of the Old Testament is the
most accurate and 'true' version of human history. Millions of dollars
have been spent developing Creationist Museums and Theme Parks in the
United States. People are flocking to them in their thousands. The
argument is that life on earth is clearly too complex to
have 'evolved' in a Darwinian sense and that we need to understand
that "there's a difference between the science that makes airplanes
fly and computers work and the so-called science that tells us the
Earth is billions of years old and that we came from some kind of ape-
like ancestor". Figures quoted on Lateline suggest that 50% OF
Americans now believe God created humans in their present form and 20
U.S. States are seriously reconsidering how evolution is taught in
schools in order to incorporate the creationist perspective. Thousands
of Intelligent Design DVD's have also been sent to Australia for a
major PR campaign planned for this country.

The widespread, well-organised, and extremely well-funded promotion of
the 'Intelligent Design' theory and its accompanying 'hardline'
creationist philosophies is a major attack on the scientifically
grounded knowledge claims of archaeology. Although creationist ideas
have been around for a very long time, the ascendancy of "Intelligent
Design" into mainstream public debate and policy environments and its
apparently growing acceptance amongst various groups in society means
this is now a significant public archaeological issue which demands a
co-ordinated response from the archaeological community. The
fundamentalist creationist approach undermines the relevance of, and
support for, the archaeological profession in a whole variety of ways,
and severely impedes the impact of archaeological perspectives within
contemporary social and political discourse. Where do we stand on this
issue and what is our response?

Longer term and ongoing engagement with the creationist push is a key
issue for public archaeologists in Australia and must be an important
part of the professions broader public outreach strategy. However, an
immediate response to the Lateline story may be warranted. I suggest
the following:

* a united press release from the archaeological community should be
issued to the Lateline producers, ideally under the combined auspices
of all major archaeological associations in Australia, directly
addressing some of the Intelligent Design claims as raised in the
Lateline program and defending the scientifically grounded knowledge
claims of archaeology.

* appoint an appropriate spokesperson/s (volunteers and suggestions
welcome) to undertake media interviews and inquiries.

This would have to happen fairly quickly, probably within the next 24
hours so as to maintain the currency of the Lateline story. Not sure
what the best way to organise something like this would be, so come on
people, what are your ideas and thoughts on this matter?

Steve Nichols
PhD Candidate, School of Social Science
University of Queensland






------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:23:28 +1000
From: David Roe <david.roe@jcu.edu.au>
Subject: [Ausarch-l] Re-advertisement: Cultural Heritage Position -
NSW
To: <AUSARCH-L@anu.edu.au>
Cc: Greg Newling <hr@hamble.com.au>
Message-ID: <04ba01c5e59d$bc9f2660$9d1edb89@faess.jcu.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"



This position was previously advertised on AUSARCH-L for Greg Newling at Hamble
Human Resources. Unfortunately a computer crash has resulted in the loss of all
previous applications; would all previous applicants please re-submit their
applications. New applications are also welcomed.







Cultural heritage practitioner required for contract position in NSW State
Government agency.



A cultural heritage practitioner is required in the Environment Section of a NSW
State Government agency for a period of six months (with a possibility of
on-going employment).



The successful candidate will be required to provide support to the agency's
heritage advisor. This will involve the provision of advice to project managers
on archaeological and broader cultural heritage management issues, and assisting
in the management of projects, including the preparation of conservation
management plans and strategic heritage studies. The role will also include
assisting the development of strategies and protocols to help the agency meet
its legislative requirements under relevant State and Federal environment and
heritage legislation.



Experience in both indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage management
would be an advantage. The position would suit a recent graduate, or a
practitioner with up to five years professional experience. Training and
hands-on experience provided.





This position is available because the previous contractor has moved to a
permanent position.





Pre-requisites

¨ Degree and/or experience in archaeology, history, cultural heritage
management or a related field.

¨ Current motor vehicle driver's licence.



The successful applicant may be required to travel within NSW and work outside
normal working hours on occasions. The position is based in Western Sydney.



Please send your resume to: hr@hamble.com.au, or call Greg Newling at Hamble
Human Resources on (02) 9987 2640

Dr David Roe
Senior Lecturer and Head of Archaeology,
School of Anthropology, Archaeology and Sociology,
James Cook University
Townsville, QLD 4811
Australia

Tel. 07-47815983; Fax. 07-47814045


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/priva ... -0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:47:43 +1100
From: Daniel Rayner <Daniel.Rayner@anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [Ausarch-l] Intelligent Design
To: Mr Stephen Nichols <s.nichols@uq.edu.au>, ausarch-l@anu.edu.au
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20051110134120.03257840@anumail.anu.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Steve (Nichols),

Complimentary to your post I have this: the article below comes from a news
report on the BBC yesterday - and in one-minute google search I found email
details of the chairman of the Kansas Board of Education quoted in said
news report (and personal contact details for all board members) - so you
could also email him/them if you feel they are being idiots or just cc the
press statement to them (remember - these crazy fundamentalist crackpots
are potentially educating future "Leaders of the so-called Free World")

cheers,

Dan

STATE BOARD DISTRICT 10
Dr. Steve E. Abrams
6964 W. 252nd Road
Arkansas City, KS 67005
(620) 442-7960 (h)
(620) 442-8803 (FAX)
FAX also a phone
e-mail: sabrams@hit.net
http://www.ksde.org/commiss/ksbe10.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4419796.stm
Published: 2005/11/08 23:58:23 GMT

Evolution suffers Kansas setback

The US state of Kansas has approved science standards for public
schools that cast doubt on evolution.

The Board of Education's vote, expected for months, approved the new
language criticising evolution by 6-4.

Proponents of the change argue they are trying to expose students to
legitimate scientific questions about evolution.

Critics say it is an attempt to inject creationism into schools, in
violation of the constitutional separation between church and state.

The decision is part of an ongoing national debate over the teaching
of evolution and intelligent design.

The theory of intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex
that it must have been created by a higher power.

Definition of science

Tuesday's vote was the third time in six years that the Kansas board
has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue.

Current state standards treat evolution as well-established, a view
held by national science groups.

The new standards include several specific challenges, including
statements that there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for
the genetic code, and charges that fossil records are inconsistent
with evolutionary theory.

It also states that says certain evolutionary explanations "are not
based on direct observations... and often reflect... inferences from
indirect or circumstantial evidence".

"This is a great day for education," board chairman Steve Abrams told
the Reuters news agency.

Decisions about what is taught in Kansas classrooms will remain with
300 local school boards, but the new standards will be used to develop
student tests measuring how well schools teach science.

Educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach
less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit
against a school district policy that requires science teachers to say
that evolution is unproven.

--
Daniel Rayner
School of Archaeology and Anthropology
Australian National University
Canberra 0200 ACT
Australia

mobile +61(0)411041951
daniel.rayner@anu.edu.au



At 11:46 AM 10/11/2005 +1000, Mr Stephen Nichols wrote:
>Last night, Wednesday 9 November, the ABC Lateline program ran a
>substantial segment on "Intelligent Design", the latest creationist
>push to discredit Darwinian evolution. A transcript of the story can
>be seen at www.abc.net.au/lateline/default.htm. Amongst the (mostly
>familiar) claims made are that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (the
>old 'Usherian' view) dinosaurs and humans co-existed, dinosaurs were
>on Noah's Ark and that a literal reading of the Old Testament is the
>most accurate and 'true' version of human history. Millions of dollars
>have been spent developing Creationist Museums and Theme Parks in the
>United States. People are flocking to them in their thousands. The
>argument is that life on earth is clearly too complex to
>have 'evolved' in a Darwinian sense and that we need to understand
>that "there's a difference between the science that makes airplanes
>fly and computers work and the so-called science that tells us the
>Earth is billions of years old and that we came from some kind of ape-
>like ancestor". Figures quoted on Lateline suggest that 50% OF
>Americans now believe God created humans in their present form and 20
>U.S. States are seriously reconsidering how evolution is taught in
>schools in order to incorporate the creationist perspective. Thousands
>of Intelligent Design DVD's have also been sent to Australia for a
>major PR campaign planned for this country.
>
>The widespread, well-organised, and extremely well-funded promotion of
>the 'Intelligent Design' theory and its accompanying 'hardline'
>creationist philosophies is a major attack on the scientifically
>grounded knowledge claims of archaeology. Although creationist ideas
>have been around for a very long time, the ascendancy of "Intelligent
>Design" into mainstream public debate and policy environments and its
>apparently growing acceptance amongst various groups in society means
>this is now a significant public archaeological issue which demands a
>co-ordinated response from the archaeological community. The
>fundamentalist creationist approach undermines the relevance of, and
>support for, the archaeological profession in a whole variety of ways,
>and severely impedes the impact of archaeological perspectives within
>contemporary social and political discourse. Where do we stand on this
>issue and what is our response?
>
>Longer term and ongoing engagement with the creationist push is a key
>issue for public archaeologists in Australia and must be an important
>part of the professions broader public outreach strategy. However, an
>immediate response to the Lateline story may be warranted. I suggest
>the following:
>
>* a united press release from the archaeological community should be
>issued to the Lateline producers, ideally under the combined auspices
>of all major archaeological associations in Australia, directly
>addressing some of the Intelligent Design claims as raised in the
>Lateline program and defending the scientifically grounded knowledge
>claims of archaeology.
>
>* appoint an appropriate spokesperson/s (volunteers and suggestions
>welcome) to undertake media interviews and inquiries.
>
>This would have to happen fairly quickly, probably within the next 24
>hours so as to maintain the currency of the Lateline story. Not sure
>what the best way to organise something like this would be, so come on
>people, what are your ideas and thoughts on this matter?
>
>Steve Nichols
>PhD Candidate, School of Social Science
>University of Queensland
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ausarch-l mailing list
>Ausarch-l@anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/ausarch-l

Daniel Rayner
School of Archaeology and Anthropology
The Australian National University
Canberra 0200 ACT Australia



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:40:09 +1000
From: Annie Ross <annie.ross@uq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [Ausarch-l] Intelligent Design
To: Mr Stephen Nichols <s.nichols@uq.edu.au>
Cc: ausarch-l@anu.edu.au
Message-ID: <1131594009.4372c11940eca@my.uq.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Steve has made an important point, although I suspect it will not be possible to
raise a suitable response in the time-frame (24 hours) Steve has suggested.
Perhaps this is a topic that should be discussed at the up-coming AAA AGM. If
we can develop some materials that could be used to provide an immediate
response in further, or even manufacture an event that could produce an
opportunity to put our views and concerns forward (?NAW), this might be useful
for next year. Peter White, is it time to reprint "The Past is Human"?

Cheers

Annie

Quoting Mr Stephen Nichols <s.nichols@uq.edu.au>:

> Last night, Wednesday 9 November, the ABC Lateline program ran a
> substantial segment on "Intelligent Design", the latest creationist
> push to discredit Darwinian evolution. A transcript of the story can
> be seen at www.abc.net.au/lateline/default.htm. Amongst the (mostly
> familiar) claims made are that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (the
> old 'Usherian' view) dinosaurs and humans co-existed, dinosaurs were
> on Noah's Ark and that a literal reading of the Old Testament is the
> most accurate and 'true' version of human history. Millions of dollars
> have been spent developing Creationist Museums and Theme Parks in the
> United States. People are flocking to them in their thousands. The
> argument is that life on earth is clearly too complex to
> have 'evolved' in a Darwinian sense and that we need to understand
> that "there's a difference between the science that makes airplanes
> fly and computers work and the so-called science that tells us the
> Earth is billions of years old and that we came from some kind of ape-
> like ancestor". Figures quoted on Lateline suggest that 50% OF
> Americans now believe God created humans in their present form and 20
> U.S. States are seriously reconsidering how evolution is taught in
> schools in order to incorporate the creationist perspective. Thousands
> of Intelligent Design DVD's have also been sent to Australia for a
> major PR campaign planned for this country.
>
> The widespread, well-organised, and extremely well-funded promotion of
> the 'Intelligent Design' theory and its accompanying 'hardline'
> creationist philosophies is a major attack on the scientifically
> grounded knowledge claims of archaeology. Although creationist ideas
> have been around for a very long time, the ascendancy of "Intelligent
> Design" into mainstream public debate and policy environments and its
> apparently growing acceptance amongst various groups in society means
> this is now a significant public archaeological issue which demands a
> co-ordinated response from the archaeological community. The
> fundamentalist creationist approach undermines the relevance of, and
> support for, the archaeological profession in a whole variety of ways,
> and severely impedes the impact of archaeological perspectives within
> contemporary social and political discourse. Where do we stand on this
> issue and what is our response?
>
> Longer term and ongoing engagement with the creationist push is a key
> issue for public archaeologists in Australia and must be an important
> part of the professions broader public outreach strategy. However, an
> immediate response to the Lateline story may be warranted. I suggest
> the following:
>
> * a united press release from the archaeological community should be
> issued to the Lateline producers, ideally under the combined auspices
> of all major archaeological associations in Australia, directly
> addressing some of the Intelligent Design claims as raised in the
> Lateline program and defending the scientifically grounded knowledge
> claims of archaeology.
>
> * appoint an appropriate spokesperson/s (volunteers and suggestions
> welcome) to undertake media interviews and inquiries.
>
> This would have to happen fairly quickly, probably within the next 24
> hours so as to maintain the currency of the Lateline story. Not sure
> what the best way to organise something like this would be, so come on
> people, what are your ideas and thoughts on this matter?
>
> Steve Nichols
> PhD Candidate, School of Social Science
> University of Queensland
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ausarch-l mailing list
> Ausarch-l@anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/ausarch-l
>


(Dr) Annie Ross
School of Social Science
School of Natural and Rural Systems Management
University of Queensland
St Lucia QLD 4072

61 7 3365 1450 (Social Science)
61 7 5460 1480 (NRSM)
61 7 3365 1544 (fax)

CRICOS provider number: 00025B

A/Head of Anthropology Program
Head of Honours Program (Anthropology and Archaeology)


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ausarch-l mailing list
Ausarch-l@anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/ausarch-l


End of Ausarch-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 13
*****************************************




| | | | | Inbox

Get the latest updates from MSN
ninemsn Home | Membership | Hotmail | People & Groups | Search | Mobile | Hotmail Plus
Feedback | Help
© 2005 Microsoft TERMS OF USE Privacy Statement Anti-Spam Policy

e this works

ROTFLMAO!

Well done. I'll be back to read all that after my hockey game.

Hi mate hope you enjoy will take the free beer lol im sitting at the corner table with Darwin lol as to links ??so you want the next 7 posts lol they a bit longer haha cheers Terry.

Well, it's true about Kansas unfortunately. Six of ten of the morons on the state school board voted to dump that creationist drivel into student's minds in the guise of "science".

On the plus side....just so you don't think we're all assholes...a school board in Dover, Pennsylvania had also attempted to introduce creationism into the school curriculum and were being sued in federal court. The trial is over but the judge has not ruled yet. Meanwhile, the voters in the town threw out 8 of the 9 school board members and replaced them with saner
people. So, you see, there is some hope.

Sorry for the delay assholes mate no i normally dont judge people everyone has a say in their own way in fact it is that difference in opinions we live on.But as a guide may i add this sort of thing inteligent design is not healthy lol.Once i was giving a lecture on hox genes and their meaning in evolution the good christians in the audience were to say the least (interesting) i mean i did not get a thrill out of being abused and spat on.But hey if i had told them they where morons they would then claim they were being persecuted instead the head of the school sent for the rugby team which he sat behind them their fervour declined cheers terry.

I know what you mean, mate.


They can be a bit hard to take.

People can we bring this back to topic?

Cease with the flaming.

MichelleH
Moderator/Administrator

Jean Marie wrote:Nicelodian did a survay and as it turns out like 70% of elementary school aged kids have complete entertainment systems in their bed rooms! TV DVD and video games and computers. They sit up there all alone with no supervision no one cares what they watch or see or how their young minds are being influanced. They never see their parents. They're too BUSY! Too busy for their own kids! American families don't even eat dinner together anymore! Their is a national campaign called "The Family Table" where they are trying to get families to sit down and eat together! No one cares about them! And OUR kids are the kids who are screwed up? I don't think so! You're really extremely dimented! My kids are very fortunate to have a stay at home mom who does the job that God gave me to do, raising my kids! You're really stupid!

If you're teaching them they'll never ever win any spelling bees. Nickelodian, survey, influenced, demented, are the proper spellings. Fortunate kids indeed!

Irrelevant.


Home schooling is simply one more attempt by parents to continue controlling their precious little offspring. Public education does much more than instill basic skills, it teaches kids to interact with others...including (gasp) people who may not think like them.

That's what you want to avoid by making sure that only your brand of drivel goes into their heads.

If it's not too ironic to say....Heaven help them when they have to deal with the world without your 'guidance.'

God forbid your kids should learn to think for themselves. And I mean that very literally.

Guys, if we'd quit justifying her nonsense with responses maybe she'd shut the hell up. Just a suggestion.

More than happy moderator to get back on topic which i am attempting to do and in private communication this is being done.However i am at the moment finding it difficult to remain on topic when any posting i make is being met with pointless and seemingly endless rhetoric.No more communication will be entered into with jean Marie as this appears a pointless waste of my time so anyone who seriously wishes to discuss evolution or inteligent design best may be send a private message all the best cheers Terry.

I don't know why this abuse is being tolerated here.