Sky and Tel's anti-bible editorial

Tim Killian wrote:
At our local college, we have a biology professor who considers
evolution an axiom, and flatly refuses to allow any contrary opinions in
his classes or assignments. Is scientific zealotry preferable to
religious zealotry?

Marginally preferable. Evolution is a very powerful tool. These days it
is even used to enable computers to solve really hard problems.

However, I have yet to see any modern Creationism that is actually
science based. "The Bible is the literal truth" just will not hack it.

They had a scientific case in the Victorian era when Lord Kelvin was
able to show that the sun could not possibly burn for long enough for
Darwinian evolution to occur. But now we know about nuclear fusion there
are no barriers to evolution over geological timescales.

And we unfortunately see evolution now occurring in real time due to
overuse of antibiotics with MRSA, tuberculosis and other pathogens
developing resistance in timescales of a few decades.

Fred Reed (an agnostic BTW) sums it up very well
with several columns he's written over the years:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Evolution.shtml

Doesn't look very agnostic to me. He looks remarkably like a disguised YEC.

Most print media these days are run by committees of elitists, and it's
sad to see S&T joining the ranks of magazines like Scientific American,
and Nature. At one time they were great publications that understood
their purpose

Nature has always been elitist and well respected (after some initial
quirky start-up stuff). Scientific American used to be but has been
devalued to near comic status in the drive for wider readership.

Regards,
Martin Brown

RichA wrote:

Sky and Telescope magazine's editor just produced
an editorial regarding the relegation of evolution as some weak theory
against "creationalism" as some kind of fact.

Unfortunately a rather high proportion are now afflicted by this belief.

Einstien believed in God and creation.
Are you smarter than Einstein ?

"rms" wrote in message


How do you reconcile supporting Evolution when you deny the logical
conclusion belief in it inevitably leads to, and support a political party
that is anti-Science ?

I think you're injection of politics will help to resolve this issue once
and for all. If not now, when? If not us, who?

Regards,
Ed T.

jimz wrote:
Einstien believed in God and creation.

You got 5 points for this. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:54:22 -0700, Tim Killian
wrote:

At our local college, we have a biology professor who considers
evolution an axiom, and flatly refuses to allow any contrary opinions in
his classes or assignments. Is scientific zealotry preferable to
religious zealotry?

Well, evolution is an observed fact, so in a science class it should be
treated as such- an observation. The mechanisms should be open to
discussion (but not necessarily "opinion"), and the professor should
insist that those mechanisms considered be subject to scientific
examination. Excluding non-scientific opinions from a science class is
hardly zealotry. I'm sure the college has other departments- philosophy,
religious studies, etc, where non-scientific and even non-rational
thought is encouraged.

_________________________________________________

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

jimz wrote:
Einstien believed in God and creation.
Are you smarter than Einstein ?




If GOD created man he must have used some mechanism to transform the
mud. I prefer to believe that HE used evolution as that mechanism.

Dave N.

rms wrote:
A Rebumplican Bush Voter is lecturing us on the benefits of teaching
Evolution, what an occasion for laughter. You support a President who has
aborted stemcell research funding, expressly denied the reality of global
warming, is gleefully trashing the environment in expectation of The
Rapture, and last but not least building a fantasy-based propaganda system
the likes of which hasn't been seen for 60 years.

How do you reconcile supporting Evolution when you deny the logical
conclusion belief in it inevitably leads to, and support a political party
that is anti-Science ?

rms




1.) You cross posted the above to rec.arts.movies.current-film, where
nobody will have a clue what you're talking about.



2.)If you're driving down the street, and a dog runs out and barks at
you, do you stop and get out and argue with the dog?

Chris L Peterson wrote:
Well, evolution is an observed fact, so in a science class it should be
treated as such- an observation. The mechanisms should be open to
discussion (but not necessarily "opinion"), and the professor should
insist that those mechanisms considered be subject to scientific
examination. Excluding non-scientific opinions from a science class is
hardly zealotry. I'm sure the college has other departments- philosophy,
religious studies, etc, where non-scientific and even non-rational
thought is encouraged.

This is so exactly right. I wish I'd see this point of view appear more
often in discussions in the real world. But somehow it gets lost--the
creationists are hanging on by their fingernails on this issue because
it is *they* who have defined the language and terms of the political
debate and they use these things as weapons to muddy the scientific
truths in the minds of non-scientists. It's all lies and half-truths
and smoke and mirrors with the creationist zealots.

Any normally religious person simply accepts that God created the
universe in a Big Bang and caused life to evolve on Earth, just as
normally religious people have accepted that the Earth is not the center
of the universe as once taught by a similar set of dangerous zealots.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen

Limiting class discussion might be justified because of time limits, but
he also refuses any discussion of the merits of evolution as a theory in
written assignments. His students are required to accept its precepts
unconditionally -- as an axiom. IMO, that is not science.

Chris L Peterson wrote:

Excluding non-scientific opinions from a science class is
hardly zealotry. I'm sure the college has other departments- philosophy,
religious studies, etc, where non-scientific and even non-rational
thought is encouraged.

_________________________________________________

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

RichA wrote:

Sky and Telescope magazine's editor just produced
an editorial regarding the relegation of
evolution as some weak theory against
"creationalism" as some kind of fact.
I agree with them. But I'd go further;
Anyone teaching that evolution is a theory
on par with the fantasy of "creation" should
be tossed in jail. These religious, uneducted nitwits
need to be taught a lesson before they drag a section
of the United States back to the Middle Ages. There is
religious freedom in the United States, but there are
also laws against child abuse and warping a child's
mind so as to negatively effect them in later life
with that literalist, Christian mumbo-jumbo IS abuse.
The advent of home-schooling is another area that needs
to be looked at carefully. Guidelines as to who is
qualified to provide this to children should be put
in place.
-Rich

Maybe you could round them up and tattoo numbers on their foreheads so
we know who they are. Maybe sterilze them so they dont breed. I mean
the AUDACITY to hold ideas different than your own is appalling and a
such an obvious threat to your own beliefs that you need to nip these
heretics in the bud.

- M

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods
or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia