Copernicus was wrong -- bible says so -- "religious right" biblethumpers believe it -- this is not a joke

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mij Adyaw wrote:
Open your bible and more importantly,
"open your mind to the concept of faith" and you will be enlightened.

My mind is open to faith, but closed to credulity.

John Savard


Faith is not science.

Faith belongs in church, not in the classroom. "ID" and "creationism" are
faith.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
oups.com...
RMOLLISE wrote:
That's good, since the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to
do with how life began. ;-)

OK, I'll clarify. The disclaimers would also say that the school board
is taking no official position, in bringing you this textbook, on how
life actually *developed* and *diversified* either, which is what
Evolution does talk about.

This is something I see come up in Evo/
Crevo debates all the time for no good reason. Certainly, science has
some pretty good ideas about how life may have originated, but those
ideas are WAY beyond the scope of Evolutionary theory.

Nobody I know of wants to deny Creationists their First Amendment
rights. The problem is that Creationists want to teach _religion_ in
science class.

And that is what I won't let them do.

But a viewpoint that contradicts religion is, unfortunately,
"religion"

Horse****. The claim that contradicting religion constitutes religion is a
recent creation of the radical, reactionary "religious right." They want to
claim that "liberalism" is a religion and, as such, the "liberal agenda"
should be kept out of the classroom.

Amazing the mental gymnastics these clowns will go to.





in the same sense, from a First Amendment perspective,
*even when it is empirically valid*.

I am not just talking about the freedom of Creationists to speak. I am
talking about their freedom not to have their children indoctrinated
by their opponents. That *is* a valid complaint, although this is lost
in the debate over their demands to indoctrinate everyone else's
children.

You don't understand the difference between "edcuation" and
"indoctrination."

Indoctrination is what you get in church.



John Savard

On Feb 17, 12:35 pm, "Quadibloc" wrote:
RMOLLISE wrote:
Why Shirly Chisholm? My memory of her is of a great and wise lady.

Yes, I don't deny that at all.

But we are dealing with Representative Warren _Chisum_.

Sounds similar.

So of course the *name* might have made me think of Rastafarians, as
she has at least *one* thing in common with most of them.

John Savard

Well, so do I but don't call me "Shirley"... ;-)

Unk Rod

Mij Adyaw wrote:
Evolution is just a theory as is intelligent design.

OK, Jim. I get it. Enough already. It's abundantly clear you don't know
the difference between a scientific theory and "theory" as commonly used
in conversation. You've demonstrated your ignorance in this matter often
enough that it serves no purpose repeating it. It's a shame the same
word is used for two such dissimilar usages, but that's the way the
language evolved. Deal with it. Two different things; no similarities.

When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing
world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the
law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.

Ahh... The argument from admired religious scientist.....

Yeah, but in those days, there was no safety in being an atheist. The
looming social pressure was great and on you (particularly high
profile people) to profess to be a believer. And you never knew if
some kook in a robe was going to brand you heretic, have you house
imprisoned, or worst, off with your head... It took great courage to
be an atheist back then.

Errol

My mind is open to faith

What are you saying exactly?

I have faith too. I have faith that my check will be deposited on
Friday. I have faith that when the light turns red, that it will
eventually turn green again, etc...

Do you have faith that the universe and its contents were willed into
being? Just curious:-)

Errol

That's good, since the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to
do with how life began. ;-)

Unk Rod,

What, you never heard of *survival of the fittest molecular form*?

Errol

John Savard thoughtfully opined:

in the same sense, from a First Amendment perspective,
*even when it is empirically valid*.

I am not just talking about the freedom of Creationists to speak. I am
talking about their freedom not to have their children indoctrinated
by their opponents. That *is* a valid complaint, although this is lost
in the debate over their demands to indoctrinate everyone else's
children.


They can always opt out of the system, John. But I agree with you in
principle.


You don't understand the difference between "edcuation" and
"indoctrination."


Sure he does. What you don't understand is constitutional law. On what
legal and constitutional grounds can you force someone to have their
children taught something that categorically disagrees with their
religion? Religion is constitutionally protected. Science and education
are not.

Indoctrination is what you get in church.

Whatever.

I am not just talking about the freedom of Creationists to speak. I am
talking about their freedom not to have their children indoctrinated
by their opponents. That *is* a valid complaint, although this is lost
in the debate over their demands to indoctrinate everyone else's
children.
John Savard

Science does not start out with any ending in mind as does religion,
therefore, not a religion - in the traditional sense. Scientist look
for clues and develop theories from the known evidence. If you can
scientifically, dispute the evidence, then I could care less if you're
an atheist or the pope; your ideas are welcome. But come on John,
pushing this idea that scientist/teachers have to be sensitive to
every fable some mass delusional group can conger up.

Just great; more sensitivity training.

Errol

Starboard wrote:
My mind is open to faith

What are you saying exactly?

I have faith too. I have faith that my check will be deposited on
Friday. I have faith that when the light turns red, that it will
eventually turn green again, etc...

Do you have faith that the universe and its contents were willed into
being? Just curious:-)

I believe that consciousness is a real and important phenomenon, and
it is not yet well understood.

I believe that my fellow human beings are important and valuable.

I believe that right and wrong exist; that they are as real as the
truths of mathematics and logic, and are accessible to human reason.

But my mind is closed to credulity. He who comes to me and says that
the voice of God spoke to him shall find that for me, Occam's razor
points in the direction of a diagnosis of schizophrenia - if not to
the conclusion that he is simply lying in order to gain by obtaining
control of my mind and actions.

That is what I mean when I say my mind is open to faith, but closed to
credulity. Those who bring holy books in their hands shall run a
gauntlet of skepticism, but my mind is not closed to the transcendent,
or the idea of meaning and justice in the Universe.

John Savard