chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...d-scientist/1/

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces
fierce resistance in some circles, as it has ever since On the Origin
of Species was published 150 years ago. Even in Canada, a 2008 poll
found that only 58 percent of respondents accept evolution, a figure
that drops to 37 percent in Alberta. The Vatican has also found itself
caught up in the controversy. Pope John Paul II embraced evolution as
“more than a hypothesis,” but the current pope, Benedict XVI, has
referred to the universe as an “intelligent project,” leaving some
people to wonder if he is less committed to science than his
predecessor.

Consolmagno has little patience for intelligent design. “Science
cannot prove God, or disprove Him. He has to be assumed. 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.” Rather than seeking affirmation of his own faith in the
heavens, he explains that religion is what gives him the courage and
desire to be a scientist. “Seeing the universe as God’s creation means
that getting to play in the universe - which is really what a
scientist does — is a way of playing with the Creator,” he says. “It’s
a religious act. And it’s a very joyous act.”

On 10/4/09 12:34 PM, wf3h wrote:
chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...d-scientist/1/

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces
fierce resistance in some circles, as it has ever since On the Origin
of Species was published 150 years ago. Even in Canada, a 2008 poll
found that only 58 percent of respondents accept evolution, a figure
that drops to 37 percent in Alberta. The Vatican has also found itself
caught up in the controversy. Pope John Paul II embraced evolution as
“more than a hypothesis,” but the current pope, Benedict XVI, has
referred to the universe as an “intelligent project,” leaving some
people to wonder if he is less committed to science than his
predecessor.

Consolmagno has little patience for intelligent design. “Science
cannot prove God, or disprove Him. He has to be assumed. 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.” Rather than seeking affirmation of his own faith in the
heavens, he explains that religion is what gives him the courage and
desire to be a scientist. “Seeing the universe as God’s creation means
that getting to play in the universe - which is really what a
scientist does — is a way of playing with the Creator,” he says. “It’s
a religious act. And it’s a very joyous act.”

The United States is the home of science denial. A huge percentage of
Americans still believe the superstitious-religious "claptrapism" of
creationism.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

I dont' normally make a cut and paste, but i did like this guys
comment:

"pherzen: The Jesuits in particular were instrumental in fanning the
early flames of what's generally acknowledged as the Scientific
Revolution, beginning around 1600 (or post Copernicus and Harvey in
any event.) The Jesuits were the only religious order to have actively
sought out and even contributed to advancements in the natural
philosophy of the day. They offered a notoriously thorough education.
"If only they were ours," Francis Bacon wrote, but of course without
their "sundry doctrines obnoxious." The list of luminary thinkers
coming out of Jesuit institutions fills volumes of history and
includes Galileo, Descartes and Mersenne. There are many excellent
histories of that time, which show that much could be said about
nature without causing the religious authorities to get too bothered.

The issue over religion and science is so predictably perennial, so
yawn and shrug worthy in its framing and discussion that I dare say
the above article contributes not a shred of new perspective. A brief
mention of Galileo's persecution and an even briefer mention of
Mendel, and we are expected to infer from this tenuous gossamer of a
thread that the religious and scientific pose no inherent tension? I
would say that while individuals may hold both religious and
scientific perspectives, institutions tend to be exclusively biased
either way. Insofar as both approaches to understanding presume to
speak for all peoples, places and times, it should be no surprise that
people will fundamentally disagree depending on what they've been
taught and the extent of their curiosity and laziness. I come from
Alberta, and I've had my share of idiotic conversations about
evolution (why bother qualifying it with 'natural selection'?) where
the trump card of my interlocutor is unfailingly "the fossil gap."

So a religious man also likes looking through telescopes? Amazing,
will wonders never cease? ..."

OK, so I'm a yawner and a shrugger. ?;^ )

On 10/4/09 2:36 PM, Tim wrote:
I dont' normally make a cut and paste, but i did like this guys
comment:

"pherzen: The Jesuits in particular were instrumental in fanning the
early flames of what's generally acknowledged as the Scientific
Revolution, beginning around 1600 (or post Copernicus and Harvey in
any event.) The Jesuits were the only religious order to have actively
sought out and even contributed to advancements in the natural
philosophy of the day. They offered a notoriously thorough education.
"If only they were ours," Francis Bacon wrote, but of course without
their "sundry doctrines obnoxious." The list of luminary thinkers
coming out of Jesuit institutions fills volumes of history and
includes Galileo, Descartes and Mersenne. There are many excellent
histories of that time, which show that much could be said about
nature without causing the religious authorities to get too bothered.

The issue over religion and science is so predictably perennial, so
yawn and shrug worthy in its framing and discussion that I dare say
the above article contributes not a shred of new perspective. A brief
mention of Galileo's persecution and an even briefer mention of
Mendel, and we are expected to infer from this tenuous gossamer of a
thread that the religious and scientific pose no inherent tension? I
would say that while individuals may hold both religious and
scientific perspectives, institutions tend to be exclusively biased
either way. Insofar as both approaches to understanding presume to
speak for all peoples, places and times, it should be no surprise that
people will fundamentally disagree depending on what they've been
taught and the extent of their curiosity and laziness. I come from
Alberta, and I've had my share of idiotic conversations about
evolution (why bother qualifying it with 'natural selection'?) where
the trump card of my interlocutor is unfailingly "the fossil gap."

So a religious man also likes looking through telescopes? Amazing,
will wonders never cease? ..."

OK, so I'm a yawner and a shrugger. ?;^ )


The conflict arises when the religious attempt to substitute their faith
for science and insist others do so, too.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Oct 4, 1:55*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/4/09 2:36 PM, Tim wrote:



I dont' *normally make a cut and paste, but i did like this guys
comment:

"pherzen: The Jesuits in particular were instrumental in fanning the
early flames of what's generally acknowledged as the Scientific
Revolution, beginning around 1600 (or post Copernicus and Harvey in
any event.) The Jesuits were the only religious order to have actively
sought out and even contributed to advancements in the natural
philosophy of the day. They offered a notoriously thorough education.
"If only they were ours," Francis Bacon wrote, but of course without
their "sundry doctrines obnoxious." The list of luminary thinkers
coming out of Jesuit institutions fills volumes of history and
includes Galileo, Descartes and Mersenne. There are many excellent
histories of that time, which show that much could be said about
nature without causing the religious authorities to get too bothered.

The issue over religion and science is so predictably perennial, so
yawn and shrug worthy in its framing and discussion that I dare say
the above article contributes not a shred of new perspective. A brief
mention of Galileo's persecution and an even briefer mention of
Mendel, and we are expected to infer from this tenuous gossamer of a
thread that the religious and scientific pose no inherent tension? I
would say that while individuals may hold both religious and
scientific perspectives, institutions tend to be exclusively biased
either way. Insofar as both approaches to understanding presume to
speak for all peoples, places and times, it should be no surprise that
people will fundamentally disagree depending on what they've been
taught and the extent of their curiosity and laziness. I come from
Alberta, and I've had my share of idiotic conversations about
evolution (why bother qualifying it with 'natural selection'?) where
the trump card of my interlocutor is unfailingly "the fossil gap."

So a religious man also likes looking through telescopes? Amazing,
will wonders never cease? ..."

OK, so I'm a yawner and a shrugger. *?;^ )

The conflict arises when the religious attempt to substitute their faith
for science and insist others do so, too.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Could be Harry, But i also believe that if you turned some words
around in your statement, you wold also find the opposite to be true.

"The conflict arises when those of science attempt to substitute
their scientific beliefs for faith and insist others do so, too."

That's one reason why evolution is taught and maintained over
creationism in public schools.

On 10/4/09 3:46 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 4, 1:55 pm, H the wrote:
On 10/4/09 2:36 PM, Tim wrote:



I dont' normally make a cut and paste, but i did like this guys
comment:

"pherzen: The Jesuits in particular were instrumental in fanning the
early flames of what's generally acknowledged as the Scientific
Revolution, beginning around 1600 (or post Copernicus and Harvey in
any event.) The Jesuits were the only religious order to have actively
sought out and even contributed to advancements in the natural
philosophy of the day. They offered a notoriously thorough education.
"If only they were ours," Francis Bacon wrote, but of course without
their "sundry doctrines obnoxious." The list of luminary thinkers
coming out of Jesuit institutions fills volumes of history and
includes Galileo, Descartes and Mersenne. There are many excellent
histories of that time, which show that much could be said about
nature without causing the religious authorities to get too bothered.

The issue over religion and science is so predictably perennial, so
yawn and shrug worthy in its framing and discussion that I dare say
the above article contributes not a shred of new perspective. A brief
mention of Galileo's persecution and an even briefer mention of
Mendel, and we are expected to infer from this tenuous gossamer of a
thread that the religious and scientific pose no inherent tension? I
would say that while individuals may hold both religious and
scientific perspectives, institutions tend to be exclusively biased
either way. Insofar as both approaches to understanding presume to
speak for all peoples, places and times, it should be no surprise that
people will fundamentally disagree depending on what they've been
taught and the extent of their curiosity and laziness. I come from
Alberta, and I've had my share of idiotic conversations about
evolution (why bother qualifying it with 'natural selection'?) where
the trump card of my interlocutor is unfailingly "the fossil gap."

So a religious man also likes looking through telescopes? Amazing,
will wonders never cease? ..."

OK, so I'm a yawner and a shrugger. ?;^ )

The conflict arises when the religious attempt to substitute their faith
for science and insist others do so, too.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Could be Harry, But i also believe that if you turned some words
around in your statement, you wold also find the opposite to be true.

"The conflict arises when those of science attempt to substitute
their scientific beliefs for faith and insist others do so, too."

That's one reason why evolution is taught and maintained over
creationism in public schools.


In public schools, religious belief counts for naught, or at least
should count for naught. Evolution has strong theories underpinning it,
and the proof is increasing. There's nothing but unprovable faith
underpinning creationism and indeed just about everything pertaining to
religion.

As an example, I know you are a Christian, and I think you are entitled
to your beliefs for many reasons, not the least of which is our
Constitution, and I suspect you are a Christian because you have faith
that Jesus was (is) who believe him to be and for other reasons.

On the other hand, I think that if Jesus did exist, he was one cool
dude, with a lot of important, significant things to say about how men
and women should interact with others. But I don't believe Jesus was
divine. I certainly wouldn't object to the non-religious, ethical
teachings of Jesus being included in a public high school class on
ethics, along with the thoughts of other ethical thinkers, so long as no
references were made to what Christians believe was the divinity of the man.

Hell, I think the Sermon on the Mount should be read before every
session of the Republican National Convention, because it is obvious
those folks have no frippin' idea what Jesus said.


Note that as an evolutionist, I don't go to churches, homes, religious
schools or religious rallies, and try to push my beliefs onto the
religious believers. So long as the "believers" keep their beliefs out
of my secular society, I don't really care what they believe or how they
practice, so long as no one is hurt.










--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

That's one reason why evolution is taught and maintained over
creationism in public schools.

Evolution is science, subject to the usual standards of evidence,
experimental proof and peer review.

Creationism is a faith based belief system that can neither be proved
or disproved, just like any other faith based belief.

Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based
beliefs of others?

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:36:32 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

The list of luminary thinkers
coming out of Jesuit institutions fills volumes of history and
includes Galileo, Descartes and Mersenne. There are many excellent
histories of that time, which show that much could be said about
nature without causing the religious authorities to get too bothered.

For an intersting perspective on Galileo, science and the church, take
a few minutes and watch this video:

http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=551

For full screen video, right click the image and select: zoom full
screen.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:51:02 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:36:32 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

The list of luminary thinkers
coming out of Jesuit institutions fills volumes of history and
includes Galileo, Descartes and Mersenne. There are many excellent
histories of that time, which show that much could be said about
nature without causing the religious authorities to get too bothered.

For an intersting perspective on Galileo, science and the church, take
a few minutes and watch this video:

http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=551

For full screen video, right click the image and select: zoom full
screen.

Very well done. Even some boating related material in there!

Watching the rest of them will keep me off the streets. But you know
what, they didn't answer the airplane question, if it wasn't Jim,
Susan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then who built the damn
airplane?
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:51:02 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:36:32 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

The list of luminary thinkers
coming out of Jesuit institutions fills volumes of history and
includes Galileo, Descartes and Mersenne. There are many excellent
histories of that time, which show that much could be said about
nature without causing the religious authorities to get too bothered.

For an intersting perspective on Galileo, science and the church, take
a few minutes and watch this video:

http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=551

For full screen video, right click the image and select: zoom full
screen.

Very well done. Even some boating related material in there!

Watching the rest of them will keep me off the streets. But you know
what, they didn't answer the airplane question, if it wasn't Jim,
Susan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then who built the damn
airplane?

My great, great, great, er, uh, great uncles Orville and Wilbur... uh,
really, not a lobsta' boat thing...