vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.”

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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. ?;^ )

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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...

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

In article ,
says...

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?

My kid gets global taxing (warming) stuff at school all the time...

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/4/09 8:26 PM, tiny wrote:


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



If you can recall a great, great, great uncle, he probably was a street
sweeper. There's no evidence of marketable skills in your bloodline.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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...

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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. :)

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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 :) ~~

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

In article ,
says...

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.

So why doo thay talk about evolution??

Everything else is
religion or philosophy.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:34:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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.

No fair, I said you couldn't use porpoises.

The other attributes just add credence to the theory that something
special happened to get man started.
--
John H

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

Are not the 'wrong' viewpoints of early scientists presented in
science classes? Should Ptolemy never be mentioned in a science class
because his theory that the earth was the center of the universe was
proven incorrect?
--
John H

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:41:54 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

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.

Aliens. It's the only answer.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:34:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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.

Aliens.

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.

Aliens.

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.

Alien intervention.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:56:15 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:41:54 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

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.

Aliens. It's the only answer.

But which One, or Ones, or one - therein lies the question.
--
John H

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:22:58 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:34:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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.

Aliens.

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.

Aliens.

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.

Alien intervention.

Which leads us back to the question....Which One?
--
John H

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:48:40 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

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.

No fair, I said you couldn't use porpoises.

Actually I've seen some dogs and cats that seem to have the ability
for basic reasoning. Here's an example: Back in the early 90s we
inherited a cat from my mother. We took the cat to our home which the
cat had never seen before. Almost immediately he got up on the back
of a sofa and started looking out the front window as a dog walked by
the house. The dog turned down our driveway heading for the back yard
and the cat immediately ran into the kitchen on the back of the house
and waited at a window for the dog to show up. Is that reasoning or
not?

The other attributes just add credence to the theory that something
special happened to get man started.

I'd argue that quite a few special things happened over a long period
of time, hundreds of thousands of years. Every time that one of
those special events resulted in a smarter, more adaptable, more
survivable being - the resulting offspring tended to do better, live
longer and have more offspring with the same special trait that they
inherited. There were other "special events" that didn't work out so
well. Their offspring didn't do so well and are no longer around.