Fishing - Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama? (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=24497)

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

On 14 Dec 2006 21:26:47 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:shb3o29781s74tg5mh9nclt0h9bre6u409@
4ax.com:

IAC, what in your model should happen if a student asks about it?

Depends on if you're tenured or not! If a student asks about ID in a
science class, I'd explain that it was my opinion that its a school of
thought which attempts to reconcile the religious dogma surrounding
Creation with the well understood and widely accepted concept of evolution,
and suggest that evolution does not need devine help to work.

Andy?

IAC, you've disseminated information. So what's the big deal in simply
informing a class in that same general way, without the bias of the last
sentence, and providing them with outside sources that (fairly) support
and refute ID should they desire more information?

And as an aside, one of the particularly funny things about this topic
IMO is that it is feasible for "God" to have designed a system in which
evolution could and did occur, set things into motion, taken off what
I'm fairly sure would have to be some really bitchin' Tevas, feet on the
coffee table, and kicked back with some popcorn and a beer to watch what
happened. It's not likely, but it's possible.

R

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

" wrote in
oups.com:

I've never understood how any decent scientist can follow
organized religion. They seem to be mutually exclusive ways
of thinking.

You would have loved to see the Dalai Lama speaking at the Society for
Neuroscience meeting a couple of years back.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:

I have no trouble teaching children these beliefs in the proper context,
which is in a framework of comparative religion, social studies, or history
of science. I have tremendous issues with teaching faith as science.

Most of this thread isn't showing up on my server, so this
is the best jumping in point that I could find.

Philosophers do not find the foundations of science and faith
all that different.

Oh goody, yet another scientist heard from!

O.k., I'll play.

Which philosphers would those be? References to specific editions and
pages of their works would be MOST helpful. Oh, and next time you talk
to them, ask them for me, please, whether their faith alone is
sufficient to get a 747 off the ground or does it take the combined
thrust and lift of all the passengers on the plain......um.....and
maybe some of the ground crew, too?

Science has shown itself spectacularly
capable of declaring "truths" it later shows are false,

Hopeless to point it out, I'm sure, but that's the point.....the key
difference. To put it another way, that's how you know it's
science.....not faith.

and
thus science is as much founded on _belief_ as faith is.

No. And thus science is self-correcting while faith, being perfect to
begin with, never needs correction.

Sure,
I _believe_ science is making much progress in discovering
objective truth(*), but the next scientific revolution might
shatter my notions of scientific "fact".

Thus demonstrating that you have no notion whatsoever of what the words
"believe", "science", "progress", "discovering", "objective", "truth",
"scientific", "revolution", or "facts" mean. Congratulations, even for
ROFF, that's a LOT to confess in one sentence.

Understanding what is
NOT scientifically knowable is just as important as understanding
what is...

Does that sort of make you feel like you've got an awful lot of
catching up to do? It should.

Jon.
(*): Stating that there even _is_ objective truth is yet
another belief. The existence or not of objective truth is
one of those things not scientifically knowable.

O.k., yes, your repeated assertions that ontological masturbation feels
good must be taken at face value.....but, no, it is NOT something you
should demonstrate to the neighbors' children.

Wolfgang

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

On 14 Dec 2006 14:18:54 -0800, "
wrote:

wrote:
And as an aside, one of the particularly funny things about this topic
IMO is that it is feasible for "God" to have designed a system in which
evolution could and did occur, set things into motion, taken off what
I'm fairly sure would have to be some really bitchin' Tevas, feet on the
coffee table, and kicked back with some popcorn and a beer to watch what
happened. It's not likely, but it's possible.

Why isn't it likely? Seems about as likely/unlikely as any other
scenario.

Oh, sweet Jesus' mother on a mule...this isn't gonna involve Greek
letters and gameshow hosts, is it?

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

On 14 Dec 2006 22:02:08 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:fkg3o219u3noj1nvijphq6ellcr3cdja5i@
4ax.com:

And as an aside, one of the particularly funny things about this topic
IMO is that it is feasible for "God" to have designed a system in which
evolution could and did occur, set things into motion, taken off what
I'm fairly sure would have to be some really bitchin' Tevas, feet on the
coffee table, and kicked back with some popcorn and a beer to watch what
happened. It's not likely, but it's possible.

Isn't that a real school of religious thought-- that there is a God, but we
don't need to care, as he's not gonna be giving us a hand?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. IAC, as for me, I don't think
God, real or otherwise, is what gives people help. It's their faith
that does it...or really, really doesn't...

HTH,
R