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

On Feb 17, 11:19 am, "Quadibloc" wrote:
RMOLLISE wrote:
"Culturally sensitive" in what way? How? And don't discount this. How
many people thought the Scopes trial had settled the evolution debate
80 years ago?

As I note in another reply to your post, looking deeper into this, it
turns out that Representative Warren Chisum has not made any public
criticism of the heliocentric theory. As a Young Earth Creationist, he
denies the Big Bang, and he happened to cite something he saw on a web
site that *elsewhere*, in a portion he likely had not read, took a
position against Copernicus.

I suspect the current controversy will wind up giving birth to a new
"urban legend".

In the case of evolution, what I mean by culturally sensitive is this:

Textbooks will teach evolution, not creation or "intelligent design".

But while they will present the facts and arguments in favor of
evolution, and they will not present any disclaimers which imply a
lack of credibility to evolution, or credibility for creationism, and
they will not "teach the controversy" when there is no real
controversy...

they _will_ disclaim teaching any conclusions about the actual origin
of life.

We are teaching you the allegations of certain scientists about the
origin of life.

You will be examined on your knowledge of these allegations.

We will not say how likely we think these allegations are to be true.

We will not say why we do not take the time to teach you about other
ideas concerning the origin of life.

snip



The Creationists should get what the First Amendment demands they are
owed... but nothing more. I would even say they deserve it.

John Savard

Hi John:

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

Unk Rod

On Feb 17, 12:01 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:47:04 -0800, "Mij Adyaw"
wrote:

Evolution is just a theory as is intelligent design. Both should be taught
in schools...

ID is not a scientific theory. It has no place in any science class.

remaining OT BS snipped

_________________________________________________

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

Hi Chris:

What continues to be a problem? Many Americans have little idea what
the word "theory" means in science and little understanding of how the
Scientific Method works. They tend to mistakenly believe "theory"
means "suspect," "likely untrue," "unsupported," etc. ;-)

Unk Rod

On Feb 17, 11:08 am, "Quadibloc" wrote:
RMOLLISE wrote:
Unfortunately, he's NOT making this up. And the guy in question dang
shore ain't a Rastaman, either. ;-)

Well, you can understand why I thought he might have been smoking
something!

And perhaps the name of Shirley Chisholm was lurking in the back of my
thoughts somewhere as well as I groped for possibilities to explain
something so incongrouous.

John Savard

Why Shirly Chisholm? My memory of her is of a great and wise lady.

Unk Rod

On 17 Feb 2007 09:19:35 -0800, "Quadibloc" wrote:

In the case of evolution, what I mean by culturally sensitive is this:

I hope my kids never have a science teacher who thinks that way. When
kids in my classes bring up creationism, I tell them their beliefs
aren't supported by evidence. Period. There is no room for "cultural
sensitivity" in science. You teach the theories, you teach what evidence
allows us to place a certain level of confidence in those theories, when
there is more than one major theory you teach them all. If any of those
theories conflict with non-scientific beliefs held by some students,
tough. It's science class.

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 Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On 17 Feb 2007 10:10:29 -0800, "RMOLLISE" wrote:

Hi Chris:

What continues to be a problem? Many Americans have little idea what
the word "theory" means in science and little understanding of how the
Scientific Method works. They tend to mistakenly believe "theory"
means "suspect," "likely untrue," "unsupported," etc. ;-)

Indeed. Very high up on the educational priorities of AAAS (which has
become very involved in science education since the ID nonsense made the
scene) is changing this, teaching early and often what "theory" means in
science. I've certainly started emphasizing it, and have also stressed
the value of the scientific method as a tool outside of science.

_________________________________________________

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

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

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" 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.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.



Ohhh those Chisums...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065547/combined

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

TMA wrote:
Ohhh those Chisums...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065547/combined

Ah, yes. But, of course, the later movie "Heaven's Gate" told the
*true* story.

John Savard