Pigeon Hole Post
In his "The Origin Of The Species" Charles Darwin discussed at some length the origins of the domestic pigeon, concluding that they all descended from the rock pigeon, otherwise known as Columbia Livia. But I have scanned his work and failed to see any definite date for the creation of the first pigeon hole.
Be that as it may, MLAs discovered in their pigeon holes today a DVD entitled "Scientific Evidence for Creation in the Classroom".
The free gift came courtesy of the North Antrim MLA, Mervyn Storey, who argued in an accompanying letter that "some people are of the opinion that scientific evidence that points to a younger earth and to the sudden appearance of species fully formed should be consigned to a philosophy or RE class. Clearly this is an unscientific approach to the teaching of our children".
Mr Storey continued "it is in fact a more scientific approach to open up science classes for the consideration of more of the evidence".
So what came first, the pigeon or the pigeon hole?
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~36~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark
Could 'savedbygrace' maybe clarify this for me. If God created man; if God says homosexuality is an abomination, why did God create gay men and women???
I'm confused (not about my sexuality); is creationism an abomination???
Maybe Storey and McCauseland could see a psychiatrist to help them with their confusion???
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark
PIGEON HOLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
In Mervyn Storey’s case the term you’re looking for is: XXXXXXXX!
Susie
Carryduff
Complain about this comment
#3
XXXcXXoX.... I wonder if those 2 letters feature?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
4. bushmill_1608
"XXXcXXoX"
Is this a new made up Ulster Scots word???
Complain about this comment
I support the free gift from Mervyn Storey - not in full, but for the most part.
If there is evidence for a younger earth or to the sudden appearance of species fully formed these opinions out to be consigned to philosophy - not as truths, but questions to think about.
I cannot agree with "religious class" because I don't believe that "religion" belongs in school. Religion has its own source of instruction, including parents.
BY all means, present evidence - real evidence. If young people have been taught how to think for themselves (vs. memorization and rote), they will draw their own conclusions. They might even discover some astounding truths - such as who really discovered America, or the fact that the Artic poles were once tropical.
So what came first, the pigeon or the pigeon hole?
The pigeon.
The pigeon hole came much after, as a human invention. The unfortunate consequence of the pigeon hole has been stereotyping which results from attempting to fit all things, including thoughts, into a particular hole.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Mervyn Storey has some sense of humour.
I fear for the thoroughness of your literature search Mr. Devenport. Surely by now you'd have figured out that "Columba Livia" and other formal species names are always italicised and the final species denomination (i.e. livia) is never in capitalised. If you were an undergraduate biology student you'd have a huge circle in your report with the "see me please" written beside it! Such mistakes are littered in "science reporters'" articles, so don't feel too bad.
Your question: which came first, the pigeon or the hole? I'd actually be inclined to say the hole. Because it would have been already embedded into the pigeons' genetic code since the pigeon had emerged from an ancestor already competent in burrowing holes. When the pigeon emerged from the former species due to evolutional advantages characterising itself as a new bonafide species (now the rock pigeon), the hole digging was never an issue.
The real question is when to call a pigeon a pigeon, and not the former bird (possibly now extinct) which gave rise to the pigeon. The same is true of the chicken and egg paradox.
Someone should aprise Mervyn Story of the "crockoduck" debate in which Kirk Cameron postulated that evolution is invalid since crockoduck doesn't exist (hosted by Martin Bashir). Refere to here for the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck
Refer to here for Kirk Cameron in the flesh flexing his intellectual prowess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0DdgSDan9c&feature=related
Ignore the sub-standard atheists on the panel. This video was seized upon by millions of creationists as "proof" that the theory is invalid
Richard Dawkins offered to explain exactly why evolution doesn't support chimerisms (interspecies mixing), rather each species has a common ancestor. Kirk Cameron pulled out of the debate (I wonder why).
Love PieMan
Complain about this comment
Mark, i know today is going to be a momentous news day, but any chance of a blog about the collapse of the RPA? I'm not diminishing Bloody Sunday but surely the Executive needs to be held to account over this latest fiasco?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Story evolves to Storey
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS