Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 04:20:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: On Oct 4, 5:36*pm, JohnRant wrote: Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? None of the famous scientists have explained why only one species has the ability to reason. Please don't compare porpoises to man. sure they have. check out the concept of 'spandrel' that stephen jay gould and other developed... Actually, I like his analogy to arched bridge spans. When you think about it, his concept of architectural imperatives in evolution rather than adaptive selection (the Darwinian model) make some sense in the abstract. However, to get bring this back to the original point, Gould also believed that science and religious faith are two seperate concepts. As Brother Consolmagno said - "If people have no other reason to believe in God than that they can’t imagine how the human eye could have evolved by itself, then their faith is very weak.” One can have faith in a Creator and still believe in the science of evolution. Or Aliens. :) |
#22
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. :) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. :) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. :) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) ~~ |
#23
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 7:21 AM, wf3h wrote: On Oct 5, 5:57 am, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. -- there's no SCIENTIFIC controversy. the 'controversy' is EXCLUSIVELY political and religious. Precisely. There is no scientific basis or even theory for creationism. There's nothing behind it but superstition and religious belief. Creationism deserves no mention in modern science classes. It must drive krausie nuts to see "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins. |
#24
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. :) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. :) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. :) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) ~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
#25
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#26
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. Everything else is religion or philosophy. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the world. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
#27
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. Everything else is religion or philosophy. BTW, I let you off easy. Science may attempt to prove facts. It has not done so. Science has yet to show when, where, or how man came to be, let alone with an ability to reason. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
#28
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH
wrote: There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the world. Science is not based on viewpoints and it is a mistake to get that confused. |
#29
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/5/09 2:12 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, wrote: There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the world. Science is not based on viewpoints and it is a mistake to get that confused. I really don't understand this religious "viewpoint" nonsense being presented in a public school science class or, in fact, any other class but for one whose subject matter is "ethics." Discussion of religious viewpoints belongs in houses of worship, religious schools, and in the home, *not* in the K-12 public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
#30
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:41:54 -0400, JohnH
wrote: BTW, I let you off easy. Science may attempt to prove facts. It has not done so. Science has yet to show when, where, or how man came to be, let alone with an ability to reason. The science of evolution deals with all living organisms not just man. It is interesting to note that even with all of our advanced science no one has yet synthetically produced even the simplest one cell living organism. That may change but it just shows how difficult it is. It is pretty clear that mankind has evolved over the years, up from the relatively recent cro-magnons and others to the present day. Where the cro-magnons and other early human forms came from may never be precisely known since it happened over hundreds of thousands of years. It may turn out that the ability to reason is not limited to humans. Our real unique specialty (in addition to complex reasoning) seems to be the ability to manipulate symbols, record history, learn from it, and pass it on to the next generation. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Right-wing newspaper slams cretinism, er, creationism museum | General | |||
GOP blasts GOP | General | |||
OT Creationism or evolution? | General | |||
(OT) Reagan blasts Bush | General | |||
Billionaire Blasts Bush | General |