OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president
more in tune with our own values. Like so many in the blue states, we
"don't get" the value systems of red state voters. We get New York. We
get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland. But we're left
scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas.

You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates
the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global
consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in
Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little global
import. Or maybe not.

Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being
required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it.
That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science
teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science
classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific
method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The
dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates of
the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't
ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false.

I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of
major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right
now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your president
and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe. We don't want to
be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our post
modern world.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president
more in tune with our own values. Like so many in the blue states, we
"don't get" the value systems of red state voters. We get New York.
We
get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland. But we're
left
scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas.

You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates
the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global
consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in
Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little
global
import. Or maybe not.

Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being
required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it.
That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science
teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science
classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific
method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The
dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates
of
the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't
ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false.

I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of
major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right
now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your
president
and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe. We don't want
to
be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our
post
modern world.

frtzw906

I almost missed this post, and I really do appreciate your time.

What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children. Not some Government program with enforcement police. Your
science teacher in Kansas is also free to find a classroom where he is
free to teach as he likes. I don't necessarily agree with the school
board, but I do agree that it is their choice, and I live a couple
hundred miles away, in the same country, and its not my business. As
far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so scientific, but
that is another discussion.

If a woman in Afganistan wears a burka, that is a cultural expression,
no out rage here, from me. As long as she is free to go else where, and
not wear one if she desires, she is free. Now she is also free to stay
and not wear a burka. That liberty is what I value, and would like to
bottle.

I spent three years in southern Mexico right where the Zapatistas are
fighting now for their freedom. I understand cultural differences!

As far as political climate in the blue states, keep in mind that they
were blue by only the smallest margin, even requiring recounts, with no
hanging chads. Those blue need to pay attention to the red in their
district, less the tide turn. Then your head will really swim! TnT

TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science --
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies. Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was
less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was
using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I
think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science
--
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny
that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic
best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not
our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not
our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies. Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

cheers,
frtzw906

First, if the burka wearing woman was being raped, and was screaming
for help, would you interfere in another culture? If she said she did
not want to wear a burka any longer would you insist on her being free
to do as she liked. You say you are reviled by the lack of choice, but
would you feel justified to get involved to change the status quo?

Secondly, it seems that we must get into it, so I will a little.
Science has a theory, called Evolution. Lots of info, and not all
supported, so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

Kansas (and other) school boards say that both theories have to be
taught equally as theories. Neither can be taught as the only
explanation.

Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.

I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.

It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict. If the teacher restricts himself to equipping his
students to go into the field and observe facts, he will still have a
job to pay the mortgage, etc.

I say these things as a person who is first a Christian, and secondly
an observer. I am interested in Astronomy, Geophysics and Geology,
Archaeology, and other areas not so scientific, like UFOs and Crop
Circles, Lay lines and ancient structures like Pyramids of Egypt. I
wonder about Coral Castle in Florida, and the Granite Butterfly. We
live in a wonder-full world where I try to keep all my options open.
TnT

Once the Creationists acknowledge and explain fossil evidence I might
listen to them. Until such time, it is a fairy tale. The Evolutionists
at least have a plausible explanation.

frtzw906
============================

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Once the Creationists acknowledge and explain fossil evidence I might
listen to them. Until such time, it is a fairy tale. The Evolutionists
at least have a plausible explanation.

Explain then, how it is that there are no as-yet proven sub-species links
between fossil record iterations of similar creatures, much less entirely
different species?

One can say that eohippus is the progenitor of the horse because of gross
similarities, but one cannot show how eohippus became horse through an
unbroken line of incremental evolutionary change in the fossil record. How
did the three toes become one hoof, and where are the intervening
proto-horses that demonstrate the incremental change?

While biblical Creationists of strict belief may actually subscribe to the
"God created heaven and earth in seven days" dogma, creationism as a
scientific theory is somewhat more flexible, both in process and timeline.

There are interesting facts of physics, such as the properties of freezing
water, that some believe are so unlikely to have occurred by random chance,
statistically speaking, particularly when combined with other, equally
unlikely physical properties of matter, that it is mathematically impossible
(or at least extremely improbable) that there is NOT some "intelligent
design" at work.

Whether or not God is the agent, and whether or not He popped everything
into existence during a long workweek is less important than examining the
inconsistencies found in physics and history that seem to defy random chance
as the organizing force of nature.

Teaching children about this disparity of thought is hardly propagandizing
them with "fairly tales." It's merely introducing them to other arguments
and teaching them to think critically by including *all* possible theses,
rather than excluding those that seem at first blush to be improbable.

Given the statistical unlikelyhood of life arising in the Universe by random
chance, theories of intelligent design certainly deserve discussion at
least.

And even if creationism is simply wrong, nothing is gained by censoring
mention of it. In fact, I argue that the very best way to destroy myths is
to hold them up to the withering light of reason. You can't do that if you
refuse to even mention the subject. That's as small-minded as a theocracy
that censors evidence that the earth revolves around the sun.

More information is never a bad thing, particularly for children who are
learning how to reason.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

TnT says:
=================
Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.
================

Please review the scientific method. Theories don't mascarade as
science, theories are what drive science forward into new frontiers.

Envision, if you can, science without theories. If we didn't
"theorize", based on sound empirical data, how or why would we venture
into new scientific domains.

And today's empirically verifiable "facts": where did they come from?
Were they not, at some point, just so much "theory" driving scientists
to verify their veracity?

Galileo started with hypotheses and theories. Einstein had a theory. If
science didn't have theories we wouldn't have technological advances.

It is critical to remember that today's theories (likely tomorrow's
"facts") are based on a huge foundation of data verified through
experimentation. These theories are not the result of fanciful notions
taken from an interesting book of myths.

As an aside, I find it interesting that virtually every culture has
it's own creation mythology -- from Adam and Eve of Christian fame to
the Raven myth of the coastal First Nations of the North American
Pacific coast. These myths are often of local interest only. But, the
scientific theory has fairly universal acceptance. I wonder why?

Cheers,
frtzw906

On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

It's not a theory, it's a doctrine. It has been proven - to be false.

By the way, for something to be a theory, it has to have a solid
body of evidence to back it. If it does not, it's a hypothesis,
not a theory.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

It's not a theory, it's a doctrine. It has been proven - to be false.

Actually, you're wrong. At best, the classic "God created the world in seven
days" version of creationism has been debunked. The theory of intelligent
design of the Universe has most emphatically NOT been proven to be false.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

....stuff deleted
Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.


Do you understand the nature of a theory? A theory, such as say,
gravity, is one which has no scientific evidence disproving it. In other
words, theories are backed by solid, repeatible, and reliable scientific
proofs. The inability of religion to discredit a theory, say, evolution,
does more to support its foundations than to weaken them.

I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.


Oh? Give me a single instance where an observation in the bible
parallels one of science. Mendel did wonders for science, but he
provided support for evolution, not for the existence of a god, but his
work isn't recorded in said bible. The bible is, at best, a good parable
for how a society can be structure and survive the test of time. If
everyone were to follow the words of Jesus, I have no doubt that our
society would be greatly improved. Sadly, as is always the case, the
self-righteous always outnumber the righteous.

It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict. If the teacher restricts himself to equipping his
students to go into the field and observe facts, he will still have a
job to pay the mortgage, etc.


Science doesn't try to become anything. Scientists interpret their
observations, report them, and those results that cannot be reproduced,
are discarded. Those who poorly understand science, however, often made
assertions based upon their incomplete understanding of that work.
Sadly, those who reinterpret these results for the masses, often make
errors or use poor anologies which confuse the results. Hence, many feel
that Darwin said that humans evolved from apes, when he did not. He
stated, however, that due to our similarities, humans and apes probably
had a common ancestor (which may well have been neither human, nor ape).
Genetics has proven that we share about 98% of our DNA with chimps,
hence providing support for his hypothesis (which is one of thosands of
reasons why it now has the status of theory).

Lacking a scientist on hand to witness the birth of the universe (or any
other being, for that matter), any explaination of "creation" can only
qualify as mythology, or at best, hypothesis. When you invent your time
machine and make those observations, please send us a report.

Rick