Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

wrote in news:qum0o2975niv3nl54pu7e5gbraqs7d6e8d@
4ax.com:

That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

Exactly. Children should learn about evolution in science class, and about
intelligent design in whichever class they learn about Apollo dragging the
sun across the sky with his chariot.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
wrote in news:qum0o2975niv3nl54pu7e5gbraqs7d6e8d@
4ax.com:

That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

Exactly. Children should learn about evolution in science class, and
about
intelligent design in whichever class they learn about Apollo dragging the
sun across the sky with his chariot.

--
Scott

I'm not sure I agree with ya here Scott. I believe the courts said that
"intelligent design" belonged on the shelves of comic book stores.

Op

"Opus" wrote in
:


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
wrote in
news:qum0o2975niv3nl54pu7e5gbraqs7d6e8d@ 4ax.com:

That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

Exactly. Children should learn about evolution in science class, and
about
intelligent design in whichever class they learn about Apollo
dragging the sun across the sky with his chariot.

--
Scott

I'm not sure I agree with ya here Scott. I believe the courts said
that "intelligent design" belonged on the shelves of comic book
stores.

Op





I'm particularly sensitive to this issue. History of Science is a hobby
of mine, and I teach it whenever there's an opportunity.

The Scientific Revolution (in the sense of the nickname of the 1450's-
1550's, not the Kuhnian sense) happened because scientists managed to
shed the religious dogma that people like Aquinas managed to wrap around
the Ptolemaic Universe, with its crystalline celestial spheres moving
heavenly bodies in perfectly circular orbits around the earth. Even my
scientific hero, Tycho Brahe (who I named my parrot after, cause his beak
looks a little metallic), fell victim to this dogma, and supported a
geocentric solar system. Read Brahe's wikipedia entry, if so inclined--
he was a real hoot).

Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.

wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.

Teach us, oh solon. Um.....well, o.k., teach us "about", anyway.
Seriously.

Wolfgang

wrote in news:u0r0o25h0d94dedjp6qvpubkb4c82jj7m3@
4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.


Decades of my scientific training, including federal grant review
responsiblities, all teach me that an untestable hypothesis expounded as
"truth"is shoddy science (aka, crap). Therefore, when we teach something
like this, we don't make believe that it is good science. In fact, we try
to make it clear that its not science at all.

Theologans and religious instructors are perfectly free to discuss such
matters all they want, with whoever I want. If its taught as science in a
school system supported by my tax dollars, I'll be at the top of the class
action suit.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:u0r0o25h0d94dedjp6qvpubkb4c82jj7m3@
4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.


Decades of my scientific training, including federal grant review
responsiblities, all teach me that an untestable hypothesis expounded as
"truth"is shoddy science (aka, crap). Therefore, when we teach something
like this, we don't make believe that it is good science.

IOW, that's your "untestable hypothesis expounded as truth"...

In fact, we try to make it clear that its not science at all.

I don't think it is "science" and I don't suggest it be called
"science." But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

Theologans and religious instructors are perfectly free to discuss such
matters all they want, with whoever I want. If its taught as science in a
school system supported by my tax dollars, I'll be at the top of the class
action suit.

Now there's an open-minded attitude AND a great use of the court system!

HTH,
R

wrote in news:ans0o2tjpmnhntqmashl448skfu4b8k63s@
4ax.com:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education,

No, YOU believe that this is the way life came about, and your absolute
statement using the phrase "is" speaks well to your faith. Others, in fact
many others, don't believe this to be the case, and have a variety of
hypothesis that all fall under the general class of "evolution". The
hypotheses are close to, if not actually testable and demonstrable, are
very consistent with current concepts of genetics, and none of them call
for the precendent "and then a miracle occurred". For me, that last phrase
really encompasses the difference between science and religion.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:u0r0o25h0d94dedjp6qvpubkb4c82jj7m3@
4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.


Decades of my scientific training, including federal grant review
responsiblities, all teach me that an untestable hypothesis expounded as
"truth"is shoddy science (aka, crap). Therefore, when we teach something
like this, we don't make believe that it is good science.

IOW, that's your "untestable hypothesis expounded as truth"...

In fact, we try to make it clear that its not science at all.

I don't think it is "science" and I don't suggest it be called
"science." But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

Theologans and religious instructors are perfectly free to discuss such
matters all they want, with whoever I want. If its taught as science in a
school system supported by my tax dollars, I'll be at the top of the class
action suit.

Now there's an open-minded attitude AND a great use of the court system!

You know what I think would be a lot of fun? I think it would be a lot
of fun to sit in a dark corner of an absinthe bar sometime and listen
to you and Bubba Jim and Earl Bob practice these junior high schoolyard
debate tactics on one another.

Wolfgang
yeah, that would be a WHOLE lot of fun!

wrote:

... I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

Say goodnight, Dick.

--
Ken Fortenberry