Income Tax Deadline Gets Closer

first_imgRelatedIncome Tax Deadline Gets Closer Income Tax Deadline Gets Closer Finance & Public ServiceFebruary 16, 2009 FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail Business operators have 4 weeks to file their income tax returns before the March 15 deadline. Self-employed individuals, partners, companies, other bodies and employed persons with other sources of income, are therefore urged to file their Annual Income Tax Return for 2008 and their Declaration of Estimated Income & Tax Payable for 2009 early to avoid the last minute rush.To assist small business persons to prepare their tax returns to meet the March 15 due date, the Tax Administration is currently hosting a series of free Special Taxpayer Service Programmes at several locations across the island. Persons who wish to use the service are asked to take with them all business documents. These include their Taxpayer Registration Number (TRN), bank statements, purchase invoices, receipts, sales records, utility bills, wage records and any other records that can be used to verify income and expenses.Details of all venues, dates and times for the sessions are available by contacting 1-888-TAX-HELP, the nearest Tax Office or visiting the Tax Administration’s website at www.jamaicatax.gov.jm.Failure to file Income Tax Returns by the March 15 deadline may result in an assessment being generated by the administration’s computerised system or court action being taken. RelatedIncome Tax Deadline Gets Closercenter_img RelatedIncome Tax Deadline Gets Closer Advertisementslast_img read more

Read More →

A Darwinist Recognizes (Some of) the Stakes in the Intelligent Design Debate

first_imgGould, Dawkins, Rosenberg Freestone concludes that evolution, if you do think about it seriously, probably can’t be reconciled with religious belief. He cites the thought of Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins, Alex Rosenberg, and proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis as “options,” along with intelligent design, and asks, “So what should be said about Darwinism’s implications?” His answers: Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis I would be curious to hear how Darwinists like Dr. Freestone reconcile their evolutionism not just with religion but with their commitment, assuming they are committed, to human equality and human dignity. That would make a fine topic for a further essay at Areo. John West’s documentary Human Zoos powerfully summarizes some of the baleful history of how Darwinism has encouraged racial and eugenic horrors from the 19th to the 20th to the 21st century: Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Recommended Evolution A Darwinist Recognizes (Some of) the Stakes in the Intelligent Design DebateDavid KlinghofferOctober 16, 2020, 1:23 PM He rightly dismisses Gould’s strategy of reconciliation: Share TagsAlex RosenbergAreoatheismDarwinismdivine imageequalityeugenicsevolutionevolution debateExtended Evolutionary Synthesishuman dignityHuman ZoosInstitute for Advanced Studies in the Humanitiesintelligent designJamie Milton FreestoneJohn WestMichael Beheneo-Nazisneo-Nazismnihilismnon-overlapping magisteriapseudoscientific racismRacismreligionReturn of the God HypothesisRichard Dawkinsscientific racismskin colorStephen Jay GouldStephen MeyerUniversity of Queenslandvitalism,Trending A Universal Image Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Take away the idea of a transcendent image shared by all humans equally, and you are left with a nightmare in which grading humans by race, condemning some and exalting others because of their pigmentation, becomes a definite option. Darwin’s theory gave a powerful boost to pseudo-scientific racism, as various neo-Nazis and white nationalists down to our day recognize and celebrate. In fact, I’ve never heard a good answer to the question: Given the premise of Darwinism, why would you expect humans to be equal?center_img He’s probably right that many people, including otherwise thoughtful ones, don’t give the question any serious thought. And he’s right that it all depends on how you understand what “evolution” means. His comments on intelligent design are remarkably civil, and I was amused by his designation of our colleague Michael Behe as “the intelligent design equivalent of [Richard] Dawkins.” That might not be too far off. Photo: Darwin statute at the Natural History Museum, by Alan Perestrello, via Flickr (cropped).Here is a Darwinist with a fair and clear-headed understanding of the intellectual and spiritual stakes in the evolution debate. Or rather, some of the stakes. Jamie Milton Freestone is a postdoc at the University of Queensland’s Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities. Writing at Areo, he asks bluntly, “Does Darwinism Conflict with Religion?”  Stephen Jay Gould, a more irenic Darwinian, tried to separate science and religion into “non-overlapping magisteria,” arguing that they simply answer different questions, so they needn’t be in conflict. This is wildly wrong for multiple reasons. First of all, religions clearly pronounce on factual questions all the time. Second, science often pronounces on ought questions. Third, what about all the other domains, like the arts, humanities and social sciences, where do they fit in? Fourth, is it even possible to separate is and ought? Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Once Gould is eliminated, it comes down to evolution that indeed forces us to decide between atheism — one that is thoroughly nihilistic or cautiously allows for (the illustion of) purpose — or intelligent design. I don’t see any evidence of Freestone’s wrestling in detail with arguments for ID. But the candor and, as I said, civility of his writing deserves commendation. One might add, though, that there are additional stakes in the origins debate. Yes, the coherence of a religious viewpoint is one point balanced on the knife’s edge. But there’s more. The “God hypothesis,” as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer calls it in his book that comes out in March (Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe), allows for a divine image imprinted universally upon the human race. As the Bible’s language puts it, God’s image is reflected in man much as a man’s image is imprinted in his children. What that means exactly is enigmatic, but it demands a recognition of equal human dignity regardless of skin color or ethnicity. What is a human being? That may be a still more profound consequence of the intelligent design controversy than the one that is the focus of Freestone’s article. Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide 1. It can only describe the natural world, so keep it separate from human concerns, which you learn about in civics class or Sunday school. (Gould’s view.)2. It explains everything in nature and rules out God, but we can make our own purposes because we evolved to do so. Phew. (Dawkins’ view.)3. If Darwinism were true it certainly would destroy all human purpose and meaning, and we’d be left with nihilism. Luckily it isn’t true and the irreducible complexity of living things is evidence of a designer. Phew. (Intelligent design.)4. The neo-Darwinian orthodoxy is too harsh. We need to promote a non-supernatural but still more expansive version of Darwinism that allows for life’s creativity and agency. (Some advocates of a scientifically respectable version of vitalism and some people’s take on the extended evolutionary synthesis.)5. Darwinism appears to be nihilistic because it is. Its baleful implications for politics and morality are an important part of the theory and the sooner we take the bitter pill the better. (Rosenberg’s view.) Gould as “Wildly Wrong” A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to Alllast_img read more

Read More →

Perfect over! Australian club bowler takes six in six

first_imgAn Australian club cricketer has done what every bowler aspires to do in his career. Aled Carey, playing for Golden Point Cricket Club, took six wickets (a double hat-trick) in a perfect over against East Ballarat in a two-day game.The 29-year-old Carey went wicketless in his first eight overs at the Ballarat Cricket Association fourth-team fixture in Victoria.However, he took a hat-trick in the first three deliveries of his ninth over. The first batsman was caught at first slip, the second one was caught behind and the third was adjudged leg before wicket.The drama was not over yet as Carey clean bowled the next three opposition batsmen in the remaining deliveries of the over. East Ballarat were all-out for a paltry 40.A quadruple hat trick to Aled Carey today for Golden Point CC. 6 wickets in the perfect over! @BallaratCA @sportcourier @gilly381 pic.twitter.com/G8TEY6C68F Golden Point CC (@GoldenPointCC) January 21, 2017″There were only a handful of spectators watching but someone from the crowd sensed something special was happening and managed to record Aled’s fifth and sixth wickets,” John Ogilvie, secretary of Golden Point, was quoted as saying by the BBC Sport.”We’ve got the ball in the safe and we will make a trophy to present to Aled at our awards night in April to celebrate his feat. Aled has been at Golden Point for many years and says the club is part of his family,” he added.last_img read more

Read More →