![]() |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:18:36 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:21:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Reasonable approach, but it doesn't solve the problem. They believe in something other than what is being taught. These are active and engaged students and directly challenge your presentation with what they believe to be true. What do you do? There is no problem. Ran into bible thumpers in some college classes. The profs handled them easily by telling them they were off the curriculum reservation and disturbing the flow of what was being taught. One told a persistent guy flat out, "Hey, I don't come into your church lecturing about literature. Have the decency to show me the same respect." What makes you think crackpots are hard to handle? Part of growing up as a crackpot is accepting rejection. And part of growing up as a non-crackpot is recognizing crackpots and rejecting them. And I'm sure that in my childhood Baptist church Pastor Anderson would have easily handled some crackpot disputing his sermon with talk of evolution and how wrong his sermon was. Kenny Rogers said it best. "You got to know when to hold them, and....." A lectern and a pulpit are different platforms. --Vic And the students immediately realize you've COPPED OUT 'cause you can't answer the question. Your credibility has just been shot. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
|
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:47:42 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:45:57 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Ok - fair enough. Let's take a hypothetical journey. You're a Middle School science teacher and as part of the biology section you teach the section on evolution. Two students, solid A honor roll types tell you that they believe in the New Earth model as part of their religious upbringing - that it is a tenant of their belief system. What do you do? I would point out that they are entitled to their belief system, as are others who believe differently. I would also point out the differences between a belief system and the scientific method. Most of the problems arise when one group proclaims that their particular belief system is the only one that should have standing, demands that it be taught to everyone, and tries to influence legistation and other governmental functions to that end. The founding fathers of this country were very aware of this phenomenon thanks to ongoing struggles with the Church of England over the years, and that is why we have constitutional guarantees regarding the separation of church and state. If you love this country, you have to love the constitution also. They are inseparable but some people just don't get it. Ah, a breakthrough! You would at least acknowledge that there are other 'belief systems' than the purely evolutionary theory. Good. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
|
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On 10/7/09 8:42 AM, tiny wrote:
In inet, says... On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:42:08 -0400, H the K wrote: Prayers and religious teachings have no place in public K-12 schools. You want kids to learn your religion? Send them to a religious school. Exactly, we expect and demand the government to stay out of our churches. It's not the government's responsibility to teach religion. That's what parents, churches, and religious schools are for. Well unless it's wica or islam, right?? It's wicca, not wica. Crikey. And wicca is no more or less bizarre than any other religion based upon superstition, folk tales, and man's inability, so far, to explain everything in and about the natural world. I had no idea wicca was being practiced in the public schools. Of course, it has been a long time since I was a schoolchild in your state. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:11:39 -0400, H the K
wrote: ... and man's inability, so far, to explain everything in and about the natural world. I take it you give no credence to the "God" gene? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
|
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:54:21 -0400, H the K
wrote: On 10/7/09 9:34 AM, wrote: On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:11:39 -0400, H the K wrote: ... and man's inability, so far, to explain everything in and about the natural world. I take it you give no credence to the "God" gene? Heheh. No. None. Fear of the unknown (weather, fire, famine, et cetera) was the precursor of religion. Man invented and prayed to gods to protect him from the vagaries of fate and nature. Religion evolved. The gods become more or less humanized in appearance, and became statues that were worshipped. A few thousand years later, as man's brain further evolved, the necessity for the physical embodiment of a god dissipated, and the idea of what god was became cerebral and emotional. I will not dispute that billions of people take comfort in thinking there is a god. But that doesn't mean there is one. Today, the idea of a god serves the same purpose as it dead for our earliest ancestors, as a protector from the vagaries of fate and nature, and bundled up in that belief, an idea that there is life beyond death. Is man a creation of god? Or is god a creation of man? One thing we do know for su christianity is a creation of man. This is the official version? If Dean Hamer's version is open to skepticism, shouldn't your version be open to skepticism? (Isn't it somewhat remarkable how some people just 'know' things?) -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:54:21 -0400, H the K wrote: On 10/7/09 9:34 AM, wrote: On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:11:39 -0400, H the K wrote: ... and man's inability, so far, to explain everything in and about the natural world. I take it you give no credence to the "God" gene? Heheh. No. None. Fear of the unknown (weather, fire, famine, et cetera) was the precursor of religion. Man invented and prayed to gods to protect him from the vagaries of fate and nature. Religion evolved. The gods become more or less humanized in appearance, and became statues that were worshipped. A few thousand years later, as man's brain further evolved, the necessity for the physical embodiment of a god dissipated, and the idea of what god was became cerebral and emotional. I will not dispute that billions of people take comfort in thinking there is a god. But that doesn't mean there is one. Today, the idea of a god serves the same purpose as it dead for our earliest ancestors, as a protector from the vagaries of fate and nature, and bundled up in that belief, an idea that there is life beyond death. Is man a creation of god? Or is god a creation of man? One thing we do know for su christianity is a creation of man. This is the official version? If Dean Hamer's version is open to skepticism, shouldn't your version be open to skepticism? (Isn't it somewhat remarkable how some people just 'know' things?) -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Krause has "visions". That's where his facts and beliefs come from. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com