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

Yo' Momma wrote:
You don't understand the difference between "edcuation" and
"indoctrination."

Indoctrination is what you get in church.

Not necessarily. It can happen in school too.

The former Soviet Union and the former Warsaw Pact are illustrative
examples.

John Savard

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:27:42 -0500, "Yo' Momma"
wrote:

Indoctrination is what you get in church.

First and foremost, "indoctrination" is education, especially of
fundamentals. That isn't what you get in church, but is what you get
from a good school. The word carries a secondary meaning of teaching to
a sectarian viewpoint, which is something that you will get in church,
or from a poor school teacher.

Indoctrination (especially of critical thinking skills) is precisely
what we should demand of our schools.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
where do such eccentric views as Rep. Chisum's, that the
Copernican model of the Solar System is wrong and derives from a
Jewish Kabbalistic Conspiracy, come from ?

John Savard replied:
Maybe he isn't a right-wing fundamentalist Christian Republican.

He could be black, and a Rastafarian. Then these unfortunate views
would simply be tenets of his faith, and we should leave him alone.

He had better have such an excuse. Unless, of course, you're making
all this up, as a previous poster seems to believe for some reason.

Then Rod Mollise wrote:

Unfortunately, he's NOT making this up. And the guy in question dang
shore ain't a Rastaman, either. ;-)

A Texas lawmaker _is_ apparently pushing this. What's next? I imagine
that will be demands that geocentrism must be taught alongside
heliocentrism in public schools in order to be FAIR? ;-)

These folks aren't looking for fairness anymore than their fellow
traveler Bin Laden is looking for fairness. They aim to completely
change the way science is done in this country; there would be no need
for research or questioning -- especially no need for astronomy, which
can teach us nothing. Everything we see on Earth and in the Heavens can
be explained in terms of a narrow and highly distorted interpretation
of the Bible.

This is not going to happen, in spite of the fact that the Republican
Party panders to and encourages these extremists. Even John McCain,
once a reliable and reasonable independent voice in the Republican
Party who has spoken out against the extreme theocratic right wing,
answered with a straightforward "Yes" when Jon Stewart asked him if he
had sold out and was now himself pandering to this same group (after
McCain addressed audiences at Bob Jones "University" and other
extremist venues.)

Now the theo-extremists are up in arms because the Governor of Texas
has mandated the inoculation of school girls with Human papillomavirus
vaccine (HPV), This vaccine is going to save a lot of lives but the
extremists say it "will lead to promiscuity" (in the same way that the
availability of a hepatitis vaccine has thousands of people seeking to
consume contaminated food and water and the smallpox vaccine sends
people on a desperate search for the smallpox virus.)

Even though these extremists will not achieve their goals, they aren't
going to go away, and they aren't going to listen to reason. They will
be further marginalized, however, as our country continues its painful
journey away from the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz vision of government
"of the psychopaths, by the psychopaths, and for the psychopaths," and
policymaking again relies on truth-based initiatives rather than
"faith-based" initiatives.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Feb 17, 10:14 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I personally find Christianity a deeply offensive and dangerous belief
system. But in a religious studies class, I'm not offended by what is
taught; that's the point of the class. I can study it without believing
there is any truth. Similarly, there is no reason for anybody to be
offended by what is taught in science, whether they choose to believe it
or not.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Every so often the issue of Christianity and science pops up in this
group, and it usually leads to three things:
1) condemnation of a creationist/ID position
2) assumptions that this is a standard Christian belief and
3) therefore, Christianity is dangerous.

I could at this point go on an extended apology for Christianity, but
I want to focus on the points relevant to the posts I see in this
group. I am a Christian. Pause. I can take a good guess what you
are thinking. Conservative, close-minded, creationist, idiotic,
apocalyptic, anti-intellecutal and so on. Please, PLEASE understand
that creationists (much less conservative, fundamentalist,
dispensationalist Christians) do not represent all of us. In fact,
world-wide, they are a far too vocal minority. How do these threads
make me feel? Think if outsiders saw Min as typical of this group.

There are certain beliefs that all Christians share (otherwise the
term itself would have no meaning). I do not believe in the theory of
evolution any more than I believe in the theory of gravity -- these
are established facts (as far as science can establish any fact) as
much as the age of the earth, the physics of flight. the structure of
the atom and so on. I know the earth is about 4.5 billion years old,
and that the universe (as far as we know) is about 13.5-14 billion
years old. When out at night observing, those facts are amazing,
miraculous and mind-boggling to me. Evolution fascinates me, though I
do get annoyed at having to read creationist "science" writings to
attempt to inform some of my co-religionists. My point is, not all of
us share this odd belief system of ID/creationism.

On the other hand, I am concerned at reading posts like Chris's above,
because my belief is that they are based upon they type of posts and
statements that are all too often made by conservative creationists.
The LeHaye series of books (based upon rather sketchy, fringe
theology) are not doing the rest of us any favors. Chris, I am not
here to prosthelytize, but rather to ask you to reconsider your
position. Yes, Christianity can be a dangerous religion. I will not
deny that. But it is not inheriently so. There are many of us who
enjoy and practice real science, fight against injustice and poverty
in the world, are just as amazed at the diversity in nature, the
fossil record, and the cosmos as anyone else, and who engage ourselves
in trying to correct some of these perceptions. I share your
frustration with those who want to introduce non-scientific belief
systems in a science class (I would hardly even welcome them in a
religion class, as they are very poor theology). But there are many
more like me who, when ever I "come out" as a Christian in a
scientific or academic setting, get the response "gee, I never knew
you were Christian."

Finally, Chris, if you are teaching science, I applaud you. There is
a great deal of ignorance of science in the United States, and your
work is desperately needed. Then again, you probably knew that
already. Thank you.

Erik
socalsw

Erik wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:14 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I personally find Christianity a deeply offensive and dangerous belief
system.

Every so often the issue of Christianity and science pops up in this
group, and it usually leads to three things:
1) condemnation of a creationist/ID position
2) assumptions that this is a standard Christian belief and
3) therefore, Christianity is dangerous.

I could at this point go on an extended apology for Christianity, but
I want to focus on the points relevant to the posts I see in this
group. I am a Christian. Pause. I can take a good guess what you
are thinking. Conservative, close-minded, creationist, idiotic,
apocalyptic, anti-intellecutal and so on. Please, PLEASE understand
that creationists (much less conservative, fundamentalist,
dispensationalist Christians) do not represent all of us. In fact,
world-wide, they are a far too vocal minority. How do these threads
make me feel? Think if outsiders saw Min as typical of this group.

It certainly is true that some people may indeed have the notion that
Fundamentalists are typical Christians. Of course, they are not. They
are not _even_ typical of the minority of Christians who take the
Bible literally about creation - because they are outnumbered by the
evangelicals, who are a tolerant group.

I know that there are people who make this mistake.

But I suspect when someone says something like "I personally find
Christianity a deeply offensive and dangerous belief system," he might
really *mean* Christianity. He might actually mean that he finds the
notion of a God Who is manifest in more than one Person, one of Whom
became human, and died in order that it would be possible for us to be
forgiven of our sins, deeply offensive and dangerous.

This is a real viewpoint that some people hold, and those who do so
have advanced arguments in favor of it.

Since so many Christians seem to be quiet, inoffensive people, despite
such phenomena as the Inquisition, I tend to be of the opinion that
Christianity, as dangerous religions go, is not really high on the
list; certainly, some denominations may be problematic, but it doesn't
seem to be that the entire religion is fatally flawed.

If anything, despite many Muslims being nice people too, given that
both Sunni and Shi'a Islam endorse what we consider intolerance and
discrimination against non-Muslims in the countries where their
followers are in the majority, many people are wondering about _that_
religion. Perhaps unfairly; after all, back when Christians were as
poor and uneducated as the people in most of the Muslim world today,
that was when the Western world *had* things like the Inquisition and
witch hunts.

John Savard

On 17 Feb 2007 16:02:26 -0800, "Erik" wrote:

Every so often the issue of Christianity and science pops up in this
group, and it usually leads to three things:
1) condemnation of a creationist/ID position

Of course. That's a positive result.

2) assumptions that this is a standard Christian belief and

By some perhaps. I don't think that's the case, although it is a
standard belief in many (but not most) Christian sects in the U.S.
especially.

3) therefore, Christianity is dangerous.

That chain of logic doesn't remotely describe my concerns. While I
consider all dogmatic religious thought dangerous from the standpoint
that it is contrary to critical thinking, I particularly consider
Christianity to be dangerous because of its fundamental precepts, which
I consider deeply threatening to moral and ethical action. Nothing at
all to do with the fools who simply believe obviously stupid stuff like
creationism- you find them in any religion, especially of the
fundamentalist flavors.


I am a Christian. Pause. I can take a good guess what you
are thinking. Conservative, close-minded, creationist, idiotic,
apocalyptic, anti-intellecutal and so on.

Not at all. I think you made a bad (or poorly considered) choice, but
that doesn't automatically mean any of the things you list apply to you.


On the other hand, I am concerned at reading posts like Chris's above,
because my belief is that they are based upon they type of posts and
statements that are all too often made by conservative creationists.
The LeHaye series of books (based upon rather sketchy, fringe
theology) are not doing the rest of us any favors. Chris, I am not
here to prosthelytize, but rather to ask you to reconsider your
position.

My position is based upon years of study of many systems of mythology
and religion. As noted above, my issues go to deep fundamentals and are
largely unrelated to more superficial practice. If you'd like to discuss
it off-list, I'd be happy to explain. My more topical concern here (and
the point of my comment) is with science education, and it sounds like
we have no disagreement there.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Feb 17, 4:23 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
[snip]
My position is based upon years of study of many systems of mythology
and religion. As noted above, my issues go to deep fundamentals and are
largely unrelated to more superficial practice. If you'd like to discuss
it off-list, I'd be happy to explain. My more topical concern here (and
the point of my comment) is with science education, and it sounds like
we have no disagreement there.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Fair enough. I appreciate your offer off-list, though I imagine we
may have read much of the same material and come to different
conclusions. Safe to say we agree that there are far too many people
in this country (as evidenced by the issue that generated this thread)
that are far too ignorant of science. That may be the beginning of
the decline of the US as a superpower, for better or for worse. But
that may be another topic...

Erik
socalsw

On Feb 17, 4:45 pm, "Starboard" wrote:
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

Uh..."no." ;-)

Unk Rod

On Feb 17, 8:10 pm, "RMOLLISE" wrote:
On Feb 17, 4:45 pm, "Starboard" wrote:

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

Uh..."no." ;-)

Unk Rod

There is a book inside the Bible called Ecclesiastes, it follows
Proverbs and in the 3rd chapter 18 verse clearly states man is an
animal and that humanity and the animals of this planet come from the
same origins. Eccl. 3; 18-22.

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ****ING NUT CASES
AND PERSONALITY DISORDERS IN AMATEUR ASTRONOMY@!?



Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:

An emergent scandal over a Texas Republican Party politician's
distribution of a memo citing a "fixed Earth" website alleging the
Earth to be non-rotating and at the center of the universe has raised
the question; where do such eccentric views as Rep. Chisum's, that the
Copernican model of the Solar System is wrong and derives from a
Jewish Kabbalistic Conspiracy, come from ? Until recently, it's been
generally assumed that the debate over heliocentric vs. geocentric
models of the universe, that raged up until the advent of Copernicus,
had been well resolved. Lately though, an American movement has sought
to restore the Earth to a central position in the grand cosmological
scheme... Since the existence of the "Flat Earth Society" became a
widely traveled joke, it has become hard to determine if card-carrying
flat-earthers really exist any more; many join the society for
amusement. But, there are real geocentrists who dream of spheres
within spheres and orreries, speculate that Copernicus killed Tycho
Brahe and write dense, arcane mathematical proofs placing the Earth at
the center of it all. Variants of such views apparently can be found
in the Texas State legislature and, in 1999, Tom Willis --head of the
Mid-Atlantic Creation Research Association-- was " intrumental in
revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references
to evolution, earth history, and science methodology". Willis was also
a "geocentrist" and wrote, in 2000, a bold manifesto for both Young-
Earth Creationism and Geocentrism:

"...all experiments to demonstrate that the earth moves at all have
failed. All seem to indicate the earth does not move at all. There is
much evidence that the earth is young and cannot possibly be millions,
much less billions of years old but we will not treat that herein....
The Bible does not say that the earth is at the center of the
universe. But, anyone looking up can see that the sun, planets and
stars are moving. Galileo argued that this motion was relative, that
really the earth was spinning and it only looks like these other
objects move. But, both the observations and the Bible indicate quite
strongly that the earth does not move." - Tom Willis

Tom Willis wasn't the only geocentrist toiling away to reverse
scientific theories that had been accepted for centuries. Indeed,
geocentrists could be found in orbit, frolicking and also fighting
with Copernicans, around a key ideological and theological
gravitational center of the Christian right : the Chalcedon
Foundation.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#48148