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.

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.

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

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:12:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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.

Um...er...huh?

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

It wasn't until late in the 17th Century that the heliocentric -
geocentric argument was finally over when Newton finally developed his
universal Law of Gravitation - that one had been going on since
Archimedes and Pythagor despite all the evidence supporting
heliocentrism.

It was in the 20th Century that scientists believed that people would
die in horseless carriages because nobody could breath going faster
than 15 mph. Supersonic flight was impossible. Man coulnd't possibly
go to the moon. Remote controlled war? HA!!

Science is driven by viewpoints.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.


There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.


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

H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.


There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.


You don't have a thimble full of credentials that support your ability
to analise said creationism.

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.


There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.



How did everything first start?

On 10/6/09 1:59 AM, CalifBill wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.


There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.



How did everything first start?



One of SW Tom's alien ancestors was making a firecracker to show off for
his buddies, and it got a little out of hand...resulting in a Big Bang.



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

CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.
None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.



How did everything first start?


I suspect that science will eventually bump into that stumbling block .
They have a long ways to go before they realize they can't solve the
mystery of the beginning of life.
In the absence of hard facts to disprove religious beliefs I would
suggest to the faithful to *Keep the faith baby*.
In the case of school policies, The only issue the federal government
should be involved with is insisting that The pledge of allegiance be
recited, in every classroom, in its original form, by every student, in
English, at the beginning of each school day. Weather or not prayers are
encouraged, or historical teachings of a religious nature are included
in curriculum, should be decided by popular vote at the local level.