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 Oct 4, 3:20*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
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?

Wayne, i never said they should, did I?

I considered Harry's statement,a nd looked at it in the oposite.

It seemed to fit.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:20:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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?

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.

And, you of all people should not be getting into these discussions!

Are we going to see 'WayneRant' next?
--
John H

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

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.

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.
--
John H

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

On Oct 5, 5:57*am, 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.
--


there's no SCIENTIFIC controversy. the 'controversy' is EXCLUSIVELY
political and religious.

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.

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

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.