OT: *Texas*
Steven Sullivan
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/education/01bible.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print
//
Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and BARBARA NOVOVITCH
HOUSTON, July 31 - When the school board in Odessa, the West Texas oil
town, voted unanimously in April to add an elective Bible study course to
the 2006 high school curriculum, some parents dropped to their knees in
prayerful thanks that God would be returned to the classroom, while others
assailed it as an effort to instill religious training in the public
schools.
Hundreds of miles away, leaders of the National Council on Bible
Curriculum in Public Schools notched another victory. A religious advocacy
group based in Greensboro, N.C., the council has been pressing a 12-year
campaign to get school boards across the country to accept its Bible
curriculum.
The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey
class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church
and state.
But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers
trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it
ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious
assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that
"documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun
standing still.
In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for
religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a
study that finds the national council's course to be "an error-riddled
Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt
views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles."
The dispute has made the curriculum, which the national council says is
used by more than 175,000 students in 312 school districts in 37 states,
the latest flashpoint in the continuing culture wars over religious
influences in the public domain.
The national council says its course is the only one offered nationwide.
Another organization, the Bible Literacy Project, supported by a broad
range of religious groups, expects to release its own textbook in
September.
According to Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum, which published "The
Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" five years ago, "The
distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible -
it has to be taught academically, not devotionally."
The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools says its course
"is concerned with education rather than indoctrination of students."
"The central approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a
foundation document of society, and that approach is altogether
appropriate in a comprehensive program of secular education," it says.
Elizabeth Ridenour, a commercial real estate broker who said she formed
the nonprofit organization in 1993 after deciding that she had long been
"duped" into believing the Bible could not be taught in public schools,
said the course has stayed within legal limits. "Our teachers are not to
say, 'This is the truth,' or that the Bible is infallible," she said.
"They are to say, 'This is what the Bible says; draw your own
conclusions.' "
But in Odessa, where the school board has not decided on a curriculum, a
parent said he found the course's syllabus unacceptably sectarian. He has
been waging his own campaign for additional information on where it is
being taught.
"Someone is being disingenuous; I'd like to know who," said the parent,
David Newman, an associate professor of English at Odessa College who has
made a page-by-page analysis of the 270-page syllabus and sent e-mail
messages to nearly all 1,034 school districts in Texas.
The Texas Freedom Network, which commissioned its study after the vote in
Odessa, is sharp in its criticism. "As many as 52 Texas public school
districts and 1,000 high schools across the country are using an
aggressively marketed, blatantly sectarian Bible curriculum that
interferes with the freedom of all families to pass on their own religious
values to their children," it said.
In one teaching unit, students are told, "Throughout most of the last
2,000 years, the majority of men living in the Western world have accepted
the statements of the Scriptures as genuine." The words are taken from the
Web site of Grant R. Jeffrey Ministries' Prophecy on Line.
The national council's efforts are endorsed by the Center for Reclaiming
America, Phyllis Schlafly's group the Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for
America and the Family Research Council, among others.
But Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other groups
have warned school districts against using the curriculum because of
constitutional concerns.
Mike Johnson, a lawyer for the national council, cited a 1999 legal
opinion by four lawyers calling the course permissible under
constitutional guidelines.
Apart from a showcase school in Brady, Tex., the national council does not
disclose the schools using its course because it wants to spare them the
disruption of news media inquiries, Ms. Ridenour said.
Only a summary of the course is available on the Internet, and printed
copies cost $150.
A highly critical article in The Journal of Law and Education in 2003 said
the course "suffers from a number of constitutional infirmities" and
"fails to present the Bible in the objective manner required."
The journal said that even supplementary materials were heavily slanted
toward sectarian organizations; 83 percent of the books and articles
recommended had strong ties to sectarian organizations, 60 percent had
ties to Protestant organizations, and 53 percent had ties to conservative
Protestant organizations, it said.
Among those included are books by David Barton, on the council's advisory
board and the vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, who favors
"biblical inerrancy," said William Martin, a Rice University historian and
the author of the book "With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious
Right in America."
Ms. Ridenour said the course was revised six months ago. But the freedom
network's study concludes that the curriculum's section on science teaches
creationism with no mention of evolution.
The course's broad statements about the Bible being the blueprint for the
nation are askew, said Mr. Haynes of the Freedom Forum, part of a
nonpartisan ecumenical group promoting the Bible Literacy Project
textbook. "If the Bible is a blueprint for the Constitution," he said, "I
guess they haven't read it," referring to the Constitution.
Some of the claims made in the national council's curriculum are
laughable, said Mark A. Chancey, professor of religious studies at
Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who spent seven weeks studying
the syllabus for the freedom network. Mr. Chancey said he found it
"riddled with errors" of facts, dates, definitions and incorrect
spellings. It cites supposed NASA findings to suggest that the earth
stopped twice in its orbit, in support of the literal truth of the
biblical text that the sun stood still in Joshua and II Kings.
"When the type of urban legend that normally circulates by e-mail ends up
in a textbook, that's a problem," Mr. Chancey said.
Tracey Kiesling, the national council's national teacher trainer, said the
course offered "scientific documentation" on the flood and cites as a
scientific authority Carl Baugh, described by Mrs. Kiesling as "an
internationally known creation scientist who founded the Creation Evidence
Museum in Glen Rose, Tex."
The battle of the Bible course is not over in Odessa, where John Waggoner,
a real estate appraiser, presented petitions with 6,000 signatures in
support of the Bible class - many of them on printed forms of the National
Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools - to the school board of
Ector County at its April meeting.
The assistant superintendent, Raymond Starnes, said he wanted to examine
the Bible Literacy Project's textbook before recommending one for the 2006
school year.
Ralph Blumenthal reported from Houston for this article, and Barbara
Novovitch from Odessa, Tex.
--
-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'
txyesboy
news:dcmtif$8qb$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Uh, no, *Odessa, Texas*
As you should know, sir, Texas is not only its own confederation, but it is
it's own planet. :) Unfortunately, on this fine Texas soil, there are a
handful of nutjobs along with us fine upstanding sensible people. It should
be noted Odessa is more than 600 mi from any of Texas' major metropolitans,
where almost 3/4's of the state's population resides (it's 250 mi from El
Paso, but that's El Paso...).
I'm just responding tongue in cheek, but only partially. This line of
thinking is probably indicative of less than 5% of the state's population,
and it's not fair to entitle a posting as generally referring to *all* of
Texas.
The title of the NY Times article is quite misleading too, as it insinuates
that ALL of Texas' public schools are grappling with the concept of religion
in schools; only to go into specifying in the first paragraph that this was
taking place in Odessa.
txyesboy
news:3ODHe.2025$iT2....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Had my distances off by a bit, but it's probably about 450-500 mi from
Odessa to Dallas, and 350-400 to Houston. While true Odessa *IS* in Texas,
it's no more closer to "civilization" than say Kentucky is to downtown New
York City. But we don't label those folks together.
Veronica Millhouse
"civilization" than say Kentucky is to downtown New York City. But we don't
label those folks together.
>
>
beer-belly Texas booger-eater casting aspersions as to whom is more
backwards than himself.
BTW, what the fuck is wrong with teaching about the Bible? Last time I
checked, it has been the source of endless wars, murders, etc., and at a
minimum it is a major part of the history of most Western culture. But
Liberals and Trailer Park wannabe-Liberals feel that ignoring reality is
"Educational."
Teakbois
>I'm just responding tongue in cheek, but only partially. This line of
>thinking is probably indicative of less than 5% of the state's population,
>and it's not fair to entitle a posting as generally referring to *all* of
>Texas.
>
>The title of the NY Times article is quite misleading too, as it insinuates
>that ALL of Texas' public schools are grappling with the concept of religion
>in schools; only to go into specifying in the first paragraph that this was
>taking place in Odessa.
>
Sounds like stereotyping to me.
Teakbois
<veronicam...@earthlink.com> muttered:
>"txyesboy" <While true Odessa *IS* in Texas, it's no more closer to
>"civilization" than say Kentucky is to downtown New York City. But we don't
>label those folks together.
>>
>>
>How quaint, a Trailer Park <SNOB> ! Imagine a drooling buck-toothed
>beer-belly Texas booger-eater casting aspersions as to whom is more
>backwards than himself.
Yeah, but DanC is from California, not Texas.
Jeremy Weissenburger
Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> the Texas Freedom Network
Goody, a new oxymoron!
--Jeremy
--
"There are 2 things that just won't go away. One is cockroaches; the other
is Aerosmith." -- David Lee Roth
Michael Lord
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/education/01bible.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print
I saw this article myself. It makes me wonder why other Christian/Catholic
groups don't stand up against this either, since it seems to me to be the
extremist Christians who are going forward with much of this.
Mike
Terrell Miller
> The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey
> class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church
> and state.
>
> But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers
> trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it
> ignores evolution in favor of creationism
so it's okay for biology classes to ignore creationism but it's not okay
for a Bible studies class to ignore evolution? Bullshit.
<snip>
> According to Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum, which published "The
> Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" five years ago, "The
> distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible -
> it has to be taught academically, not devotionally."
fair enough, except if you taught the Bible studies course academically,
the atheists would be pissing their pants that the course is taking
creationism for granted and not presenting it with the proper skepticism.
End result? Democracy rules, baby.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again".
-Entertainment Weekly
Some Guy
news:nuGHe.6158>
>
BTW, what the fuck is wrong with teaching about the Bible? Last time I
> checked, it has been the source of endless wars, murders, etc., and at a
> minimum it is a major part of the history of most Western culture. But
> Liberals and Trailer Park wannabe-Liberals feel that ignoring reality is
> "Educational."
Well, that's quite a spin. I think the problem is that the folks in Odessa
have no intention of offering such an objective view of the text. I have no
problem offering up the bible (when appropriate) as the basis for killing in
the name of God, but it shouldn't go any further than the broad stroke of
stating one side's perspective.
I'm reasonably sure (based on what I read) that this is a clear crossing of
the "separation of church and state" line.
Michel Forest
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary
>> survey class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation
>> of church and state.
>>
>> But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local
>> teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The
>> critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism
>
>
> so it's okay for biology classes to ignore creationism but it's not okay
> for a Bible studies class to ignore evolution? Bullshit.
>
> <snip>
>
>> According to Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum, which published "The
>> Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" five years ago,
>> "The distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the
>> Bible - it has to be taught academically, not devotionally."
>
>
> fair enough, except if you taught the Bible studies course academically,
> the atheists would be pissing their pants that the course is taking
> creationism for granted and not presenting it with the proper skepticism.
>
> End result? Democracy rules, baby.
End result: it's quite funny to an outsider like me to see the red
states go back to the middle ages.
I suggest that you (the red states) keep on teaching creationism, keep
on believing that the Earth was created in 7 days by your God, keep on
waiting for the "rapture" like those stupid "Left behind" novels, and,
of course, refrain from all kinds of stem cells research. We'll take
care of real science while you guys keep on praying. How's that?
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey
> > class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church
> > and state.
> >
> > But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers
> > trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it
> > ignores evolution in favor of creationism
> so it's okay for biology classes to ignore creationism
Of course. Creationism has nothing to do with biology...it's about
Christian biblical literalism.
> but it's not okay
> for a Bible studies class to ignore evolution? Bullshit.
LOL. They're *not* ignoring evolution...and that's the
problem. How do you suppose the 'discussions' about the Biblical creation
story go, in that class?
> > According to Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum, which published "The
> > Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" five years ago, "The
> > distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible -
> > it has to be taught academically, not devotionally."
> fair enough, except if you taught the Bible studies course academically,
> the atheists would be pissing their pants that the course is taking
> creationism for granted and not presenting it with the proper skepticism.
> End result? Democracy rules, baby.
Not in science, it doesn't.
And as for this latest example of Texan fuckwittery, the evidence is that
this class isn't about teaching the Bible academically. It's yet another
in a long line of sectarian attempts to teach their religion as truth...in
a public school.
Steven Sullivan
> Uh, no, *Odessa, Texas*
> As you should know, sir, Texas is not only its own confederation, but it is
> it's own planet. :) Unfortunately, on this fine Texas soil, there are a
> handful of nutjobs along with us fine upstanding sensible people. It should
> be noted Odessa is more than 600 mi from any of Texas' major metropolitans,
> where almost 3/4's of the state's population resides (it's 250 mi from El
> Paso, but that's El Paso...).
Funny, Terrell says they're just *fans of democracy*.
*cough*bullshit*cough*
> I'm just responding tongue in cheek, but only partially. This line of
> thinking is probably indicative of less than 5% of the state's population,
> and it's not fair to entitle a posting as generally referring to *all* of
> Texas.
Texas has been and by all indications will continue to be one of the major
battlefield state in the attempt by the Christian right to foist
anit-science on science classes. The stakes are very high there since
Texas' choices of school textbooks have great influence on publishers.
> The title of the NY Times article is quite misleading too, as it insinuates
> that ALL of Texas' public schools are grappling with the concept of religion
> in schools; only to go into specifying in the first paragraph that this was
> taking place in Odessa.
Must be those damn New York (Manhattan, really) liberals.
Steven Sullivan
Ratzy, the new pope, is, if anything, more retro in his views of evolution
that JP II. He's begun spouting some suspiciously creationist cant
lately...referencing 'neo-Darwinists' as if he really had a clue what
neo-Darwinism meant.
Steven Sullivan
public school elective course being touted by Jeebus-slobbering real
estate agents in Texas as an 'academic' course on the bible -- the
National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools' "The Bible in
History and Literature"....critiqued by a guy who actually *does* teach
academic courses on the bible for a living:
http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/BibleCurriculum.pdf
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> Steven Sullivan wrote
> > The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey
> > class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church
> > and state.
> >
> > But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers
> > trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it
> > ignores evolution in favor of creationism
>
> so it's okay for biology classes to ignore creationism but it's not okay
> for a Bible studies class to ignore evolution? Bullshit.
Surely an academic course about the Bible would talk about how it was
written, so issues like how the Pentateuch was constructed from four
sources (E, J, D and P) under the documentary hypothesis, the
construction of the foundation myth of the united kingdom, the creation
of monotheism and centralised worship, the move to individual rights,
what matches and what doesn't between Old Testament and archaeology,
the context for the Gospels and their relationship to each other, the
epistles and who wrote what, the early Christian debates about what to
include in the New Testament, the Catholic apocrypha...
Then one could also talk about the central role of the Bible in the
three major Abrahamic religions, Judaeism, Christianity and Islam, and
its influence on other religions. Then its influence on Western
history, particularly in terms of the law and constitutional affairs.
One could also talk about its significance as literature across
history.
Then one might talk about different approaches to the text taken
through history and by modern groups, as part of which one would
address the recent invention of "Biblical literalism" and the
consequent social clashes in some parts of the world, which would
include reference to "Creationism".
I mean, that's what you'd get in a theology course at university. So,
yes, I would want to mention evolution in a course on the Bible, but
only as a tiny part of that course and only to say, "Kids, of course
you know from your science class that evolution explains the diversity
of life on Earth. Today, we're going to look at how a pseudo-science
called 'Creationism' came to be so politically contentious."
However, I rather suspect the course mentioned in the article ain't
doing anything like that...
--
Henry
me may
Generalizing Texans as a whole....how very trollish of you Steve.
me may
"Michel Forest" <for...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> I suggest that you (the red states) keep on teaching creationism, keep
> on believing that the Earth was created in 7 days by your God, keep on
> waiting for the "rapture" like those stupid "Left behind" novels, and,
> of course, refrain from all kinds of stem cells research. We'll take
> care of real science while you guys keep on praying. How's that?
I doubt many religious zealots are reading this NG.
Steven Sullivan
Surely there are several species of fuckwittery...the *Texan* kind is
*special*.
Steven Sullivan
> Terrell Miller wrote
> > Steven Sullivan wrote
> > > The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey
> > > class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church
> > > and state.
> > >
> > > But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers
> > > trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it
> > > ignores evolution in favor of creationism
> >
> > so it's okay for biology classes to ignore creationism but it's not okay
> > for a Bible studies class to ignore evolution? Bullshit.
> Surely an academic course about the Bible would talk about how it was
> written, so issues like how the Pentateuch was constructed from four
> sources (E, J, D and P) under the documentary hypothesis, the
> construction of the foundation myth of the united kingdom, the creation
> of monotheism and centralised worship, the move to individual rights,
> what matches and what doesn't between Old Testament and archaeology,
> the context for the Gospels and their relationship to each other, the
> epistles and who wrote what, the early Christian debates about what to
> include in the New Testament, the Catholic apocrypha...
Apparently the importance of teaching how NASA has 'proved' that the sun
stopped in the sky for a day or two takes precedence over all that
nonsense.
Steven Sullivan
But at least one New Jersey fuckwit is.
I'm sure there's a phylogenetic relationship between the
two in there somewhere.
--
-S "dominion over all things that slither" Sullivan
Mike Smith
You've got a point there - ther might very well be some value to
discussing the Bible from an historical and social standpoint, but
that's clearly not the same thing as actually *teaching* it, as if it
were true.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
>
> End result? Democracy rules, baby.
>
The truth is not subject to democracy. If I were to push you off a
cliff, would your life be spared by the outcome of an vote?
--
Mike Smith
Steven Sullivan
The bible says the laws of gravity can be and have been suspended.
Millions of people believe the Bible is true.
So screw you, commie.
rojon
Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> ...NASA has 'proved' that the sun
> stopped in the sky for a day or two...
>
Wish the sun to stand still
Teakbois
Generic stereotyping is a common pratice on this newsgroup.
DanC
"Teakbois" <Bobby...@cool-running.com> wrote in message
news:86nue1lqkcfr5vln6...@4ax.com...
Matt, once again your lame attempts to insult me have failed miserably - I
don't even drink beer!
Chet
cure Texas. I'm glad I don't have to live there. They ottu put a big
wall around Texas to keep those people locked in.
Chris Jemmett
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> here's a link to the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund critique of the
> public school elective course being touted by Jeebus-slobbering real
> estate agents in Texas as an 'academic' course on the bible -- the
> National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools' "The Bible in
> History and Literature"....critiqued by a guy who actually *does* teach
> academic courses on the bible for a living:
> http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/BibleCurriculum.pdf
Putting aside all nasty characterizations and personal prejudices, I
really cannot see a way to defend this "The Bible in History and
Literature" course.
rojon
Chris Jemmett wrote:
>
> Putting aside all nasty characterizations and personal prejudices, I
> really cannot see a way to defend this "The Bible in History and
> Literature" course.
How does one put aside prejudice to make an open minded assessment?
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/BibleCurriculum.pdf
But I bet *this doofus* could see a way:
Bush endorses teaching "intelligent design" in schools
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002415528_bush02.html
Steven Sullivan
[The following quote] comes from an incredibly badly written article that
then goes on and on to parrot the Discovery Institute's talking points. It really isn't just
Bush, who is only the Moron-In-Chief, but an abysmally stupid press corps
that is responsible for the propagation of this horribly poor idea.
"Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes
over "creationism," a related view that adheres more closely to
biblical explanations. As governor of Texas, Bush said students
should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.
On Monday the president said he favors the same approach for
intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is
about."
Here's what the debate is about.
Scientists have established the fact of evolution with thousands of lines
of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This
idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively
documented in the scientific literature.
This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts. Religious
conservatives have mounted a long running social and political campaign to
get their falsified dogma treated as the truth, despite the absence of any
material or logical support for their position.
This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting
faith-based bullshit taught as science.
And that is what should be taught: teachers, we need to get in front of
our students and expose them to both sides. We need to stand up and
plainly state that creationism is a lie and any attempt to incorporate
faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the
enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable
tests of their beliefs.
That's the only rational version of "equal time" that will work.
Oh, yeah, and we also have to work to make sure that every goddamned
Republican in our capitols is out on their ear in the next couple of
election cycles. The root of our problem is that the know-nothings and
lunatics are in power, and are trying to wreck anything that does not
pander to their ideology ā €”and science opposes the Republican agenda.
Terrell Miller
> Terrell Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> End result? Democracy rules, baby.
>>
>
> The truth is not subject to democracy.
to quote my favorite line from teh Bible:
What is Truth?
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
especially the way Peter Ustinov interpreted it
Terrell Miller
<snip a fascinating curriculum>
> I mean, that's what you'd get in a theology course at university. So,
> yes, I would want to mention evolution in a course on the Bible, but
> only as a tiny part of that course and only to say, "Kids, of course
> you know from your science class that evolution explains the diversity
> of life on Earth. Today, we're going to look at how a pseudo-science
> called 'Creationism' came to be so politically contentious."
>
> However, I rather suspect the course mentioned in the article ain't
> doing anything like that...
let me ask you this, Henry: did you get anything remotely resembling a
graduate-level course in your primary education (sorry, I don't know the
English equivalent of High School)?
Of course not, you go the watered-down version that you and your
classmates were capable of handling at the time.
Chris Jemmett
I'm glad you asked. Send your check to me for $1000.00. You will
recieve my four part lesson called "Chris Teaches how to Think
Rationally".
Act now and get a free copy of George Michael's "Faith".
Terrell Miller
>>End result? Democracy rules, baby.
>
>
> Not in science, it doesn't.
LOL
Sure Steve, just call yourself a "scientist" and you're exempt from any
responsibility to your fellow man. Life is so much easier when you don't
have to get along, innit?
Sheesh.
Terrell Miller
>>As you should know, sir, Texas is not only its own confederation, but it is
>>it's own planet. :) Unfortunately, on this fine Texas soil, there are a
>>handful of nutjobs along with us fine upstanding sensible people. It should
>>be noted Odessa is more than 600 mi from any of Texas' major metropolitans,
>>where almost 3/4's of the state's population resides (it's 250 mi from El
>>Paso, but that's El Paso...).
>
>
> Funny, Terrell says they're just *fans of democracy*.
>
> *cough*bullshit*cough*
one city is determining what kinds of subjects they want their children
to be exposed to in high school.
Sounds like democracy to me, Steve. As opposed to us Seaboard
intellectual types making a Solomonic decision about it for them...
Steven Sullivan
> Mike Smith wrote:
> > Terrell Miller wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> End result? Democracy rules, baby.
> >>
> >
> > The truth is not subject to democracy.
> to quote my favorite line from teh Bible:
> What is Truth?
Yeah, spoken by *Pilate*...apparently one of those
goddamn relativist liberal Romans.
Mike Smith
> Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> Terrell Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> End result? Democracy rules, baby.
>>>
>>
>> The truth is not subject to democracy.
>
>
> to quote my favorite line from teh Bible:
>
> What is Truth?
That which exists regardless of your belief or disbelief of it, is not
subject to vote, and doesn't care what you think of it.
--
Mike Smith
Steven Sullivan
> <snip a fascinating curriculum>
> > I mean, that's what you'd get in a theology course at university. So,
> > yes, I would want to mention evolution in a course on the Bible, but
> > only as a tiny part of that course and only to say, "Kids, of course
> > you know from your science class that evolution explains the diversity
> > of life on Earth. Today, we're going to look at how a pseudo-science
> > called 'Creationism' came to be so politically contentious."
> >
> > However, I rather suspect the course mentioned in the article ain't
> > doing anything like that...
> let me ask you this, Henry: did you get anything remotely resembling a
> graduate-level course in your primary education (sorry, I don't know the
> English equivalent of High School)?
I did, at a Catholic High School. They're called AP courses.
> Of course not, you go the watered-down version that you and your
> classmates were capable of handling at the time.
So, do you recommend teaching Biblical tales as truth
as a 'watered down' version of science? Or even as a watered
down version of an 'academic' study of the Bible?
--
-S 'some FBs can hold more water than others' Sullivan
Mike Smith
>
> Of course not, you go the watered-down version that you and your
> classmates were capable of handling at the time.
And, so, we should teach kids - what? "Why are we here? 'Cuz God wants
it that way." Eh?
--
Mike Smith
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>End result? Democracy rules, baby.
> >
> >
> > Not in science, it doesn't.
> LOL
> Sure Steve, just call yourself a "scientist" and you're exempt from any
> responsibility to your fellow man.
LOL. You sure do *read funny*, Terrell.
> Life is so much easier when you don't
> have to get along, innit?
> Sheesh.
So, does that mean, if science says E=mc2....but nonscientists demur...
let's just *go along to get along*?
Fact is, democracy does not rule in the establishment of scientific
facts. All hypotheses are not created equal, do not deserve equal
credit, and are not worth equal time.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>As you should know, sir, Texas is not only its own confederation, but it is
> >>it's own planet. :) Unfortunately, on this fine Texas soil, there are a
> >>handful of nutjobs along with us fine upstanding sensible people. It should
> >>be noted Odessa is more than 600 mi from any of Texas' major metropolitans,
> >>where almost 3/4's of the state's population resides (it's 250 mi from El
> >>Paso, but that's El Paso...).
> >
> >
> > Funny, Terrell says they're just *fans of democracy*.
> >
> > *cough*bullshit*cough*
> one city is determining what kinds of subjects they want their children
> to be exposed to in high school.
> Sounds like democracy to me, Steve. As opposed to us Seaboard
> intellectual types making a Solomonic decision about it for them...
Yeah, I realize it 'sounds like' all that to you. That's why
I'm wondering -- are you *deaf* as well as dumb?
Terrell Miller
> [The following quote] comes from an incredibly badly written article that
> then goes on and on to parrot the Discovery Institute's talking points. It really isn't just
> Bush, who is only the Moron-In-Chief, but an abysmally stupid press corps
> that is responsible for the propagation of this horribly poor idea.
and this person's objectivity has already been permanently discredited.
Nothing to see here folks, move on...
> Here's what the debate is about.
>
> Scientists have established the fact of evolution
nope
Science *does not* establish "facts". Science carefully (in theory, at
least, though that doesn't always happen in RL) weighs the evidence for
and against a theorem, and then develops its best guess at the moment of
which way the evidence points.
that is *all* that science ever does and ever has done.
What proponents of science often forget/ignore is this: simultaneously
the biggest virtue and shortcoming of science is that it will abandon
long-held beliefs on a moment's notice (again, theoretically) if new
evidence emerges that disproves an old theory.
There's nothing "fact"-based about this process, it's just very bright
people making their best efforts to understand partially-glimpsed facets
of the universe.
In fact, one of the biggest lies that anybody will ever tell you is that
"scientists now know that..."
Funny how what scientists now "know" keeps changing redically over the
years, and often flatly contradicts what scientists "knew" in the past.
> with thousands of lines
> of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This
> idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively
> documented in the scientific literature.
>
> This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts.
which flatly contradict evolution. Loop.
> Religious
> conservatives have mounted a long running social and political campaign to
> get their falsified dogma treated as the truth, despite the absence of any
> material or logical support for their position.
ah, here we go, this is really just thinly-disguised conservative-bashing.
> This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting
> faith-based bullshit taught as science.
yep, here come the emotionally-tinged judgemental words, right on schedule.
> And that is what should be taught: teachers, we need to get in front of
> our students and expose them to both sides. We need to stand up and
> plainly state that creationism is a lie and any attempt to incorporate
> faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the
> enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable
> tests of their beliefs.
that is this guy's interperetation of "expos(ing) them to both sides",
is it?
> That's the only rational version of "equal time" that will work.
equal time: kids, everything you learn in church is a lie fostered by
the Religious Right to control your mind and body!
You know the ironic thing? Lots of Americans have fought and died so
that this guy can say these things ;)
> Oh, yeah, and we also have to work to make sure that every goddamned
> Republican in our capitols is out on their ear in the next couple of
> election cycles.
yep, now he gets to his *real* agenda
> The root of our problem is that the know-nothings and
> lunatics are in power, and are trying to wreck anything that does not
> pander to their ideology â €”and science opposes the Republican agenda.
LOL. I can't even imagine being that paranoid.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
Regime change began *and ended* in eighteen states in two small areas of
the US
DanC
"Chris Jemmett" <ccje...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1123014247.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Backed with Stevie Wonder's "Superstition".
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > [The following quote] comes from an incredibly badly written article that
> > then goes on and on to parrot the Discovery Institute's talking points. It really isn't just
> > Bush, who is only the Moron-In-Chief, but an abysmally stupid press corps
> > that is responsible for the propagation of this horribly poor idea.
> and this person's objectivity has already been permanently discredited.
> Nothing to see here folks, move on...
> > Here's what the debate is about.
> >
> > Scientists have established the fact of evolution
> nope
They have. Sorry.
> Science *does not* establish "facts". Science carefully (in theory, at
> least, though that doesn't always happen in RL) weighs the evidence for
> and against a theorem, and then develops its best guess at the moment of
> which way the evidence points.
LOL. Terrell, I *dare* you to post this to Myers' site. He's a respected
biologist, btw. But no doubt you can teach him a thing or two about
science, eh?
> that is *all* that science ever does and ever has done.
Wrong. Scientists know what a scientific fact is, and what it means to
call something a fact in science. But please, do tell us scientist more.
> What proponents of science often forget/ignore is this: simultaneously
> the biggest virtue and shortcoming of science is that it will abandon
> long-held beliefs on a moment's notice (again, theoretically) if new
> evidence emerges that disproves an old theory.
er..the contingency of scientific 'fact' on evidence is no *shortcoming*,
that's for sure. It's what makes science work. I'm pretty sure any
knowledgable proponent of science realizes this, by definition.
> There's nothing "fact"-based about this process, it's just very bright
> people making their best efforts to understand partially-glimpsed facets
> of the universe.
> In fact, one of the biggest lies that anybody will ever tell you is that
> "scientists now know that..."
> Funny how what scientists now "know" keeps changing redically over the
> years, and often flatly contradicts what scientists "knew" in the past.
Funnier still how evolution has been recognized as a fact -- a real
natural phenomenon -- for over 150 years now. And shows no sign of beign
downgraded.
> > with thousands of lines
> > of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This
> > idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively
> > documented in the scientific literature.
> >
> > This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts.
> which flatly contradict evolution. Loop.
Except, the evidence for scientific models of evolution isn't equivalent
to the evidence for the 'models' proposed in religious accounts. All
models are not created equal.
> > Religious > > conservatives have mounted a long running social and
political campaign to > > get their falsified dogma treated as the truth,
despite the absence of any > > material or logical support for their
position.
> ah, here we go, this is really just thinly-disguised conservative-bashing.
Poor baby. You read his site regularly?
> > This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting
> > faith-based bullshit taught as science.
> yep, here come the emotionally-tinged judgemental words, right on schedule.
> > And that is what should be taught: teachers, we need to get in front of
> > our students and expose them to both sides. We need to stand up and
> > plainly state that creationism is a lie and any attempt to incorporate
> > faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the
> > enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable
> > tests of their beliefs.
> that is this guy's interperetation of "expos(ing) them to both sides",
> is it?
Yeah, it is. What's yours? Teach whatever 'science' the demos feels best
about?
> > That's the only rational version of "equal time" that will work.
> equal time: kids, everything you learn in church is a lie fostered by
> the Religious Right to control your mind and body!
Except, that's not what he said. He's talking about religion being
taught as scientific theory.
> You know the ironic thing? Lots of Americans have fought and died so
> that this guy can say these things ;)
He's a better patriot than you are, actually, in this case.
> > Oh, yeah, and we also have to work to make sure that every goddamned
> > Republican in our capitols is out on their ear in the next couple of
> > election cycles.
> yep, now he gets to his *real* agenda
Ooh, he votes Democrat too, I bet. So he must have an agenda. And it
must have nothing to do with actually being passionate about science.
> > The root of our problem is that the know-nothings and
> > lunatics are in power, and are trying to wreck anything that does not
> > pander to their ideology ? ??and science opposes the Republican agenda.
> LOL. I can't even imagine being that paranoid.
You apparently can't imagine following the relationship between this
administration and science...it's been an ugly show, believe me.
Steven Sullivan
the thread on pharyngula.com
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/bush_endorses_intelligent_design_creationism/#comments
I look forward to your contributions to the
education of godless liberal biologists like
Myers (and myself). We need you to set us *right* on
what science is all about. Feel free
to throw in a lesson on democracy too.
We're probably hazy on that as well.
See you there,
Stephen Bruun
news:11ev8rc...@news.supernews.com...
> ther[e] might very well be some value to
> discussing the Bible from an historical and social standpoint, but
> that's clearly not the same thing as actually *teaching* it, as if it
> were true.
The Bible is an enormously influential collection of documents, and schools
shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. That being said, the proper place to
examine the text, objectively, is in a literature class, preferably compared
with other religious texts from other cultures, both ancient and modern,
ranging from the Enuma Elish to the Bhagavad-Gita to Dianetics. The place
to discuss, objectively, the influence of religion on society is in a social
studies class. And the place to discuss Biblical "disproof" of evolution is
at the church down the street, or around the dinner table at a creationist
household.
--
To reply, get rid of THAT THING
Stephen Bruun
news:dcnp3j$eu46$1...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> I saw this article myself. It makes me wonder why other
Christian/Catholic
> groups don't stand up against this either, since it seems to me to be the
> extremist Christians who are going forward with much of this.
Many moderate Christians do, in fact, oppose this sort of thing. Groups
like the Interfaith Alliance are actively working to make it known that the
fringe fundamentalists do not speak for the faith as a whole.
Stephen Bruun
news:h3LHe.1744$0p....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> so it's okay for biology classes to ignore creationism but it's not okay
> for a Bible studies class to ignore evolution? Bullshit.
Biology classes ignore creationism because creationism is utterly devoid of
scientific support.
Rather than a "Bible" class, I think it would make more sense to have an
elective class that discusses the creation stories of many different
religions - without getting into bald-face lies like the ridiculous NASA
story mentioned in the article.
> > "The
> > distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible -
> > it has to be taught academically, not devotionally."
>
> fair enough, except if you taught the Bible studies course academically,
> the atheists would be pissing their pants that the course is taking
> creationism for granted and not presenting it with the proper skepticism.
The difference is between teaching "the earth was made in six days" and "the
Bible says that the earth was made in six days." Also, teaching the Bible
academically involves more than just reading it. One must also study the
history of the region where the Bible was written, and discuss the various
theories about how the book came together (e.g., the documentary
hypothesis).
Stephen Bruun
> What proponents of science often forget/ignore is this: simultaneously
> the biggest virtue and shortcoming of science is that it will abandon
> long-held beliefs on a moment's notice (again, theoretically) if new
> evidence emerges that disproves an old theory.
Why is it a shortcoming to abandon a disproven hypothesis?
And it's hardly at "a moment's notice." It generally takes years for a
truly radical new idea to replace a discredited older one. Witness string
theory; it's been around for years and there is still spirited argument over
whether it accurately reflects reality.
> In fact, one of the biggest lies that anybody will ever tell you is that
> "scientists now know that..."
Not a phrase I hear often. I hear "scientists now believe..." or
"scientists now say..." or "the evidence now indicates..." but I don't hear
the "know" thing much.
> > This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts.
>
> which flatly contradict evolution. Loop.
The layout of my house in a dream I had last month flatly contradicts the
layout of my house that I see every day while I'm awake. That doesn't mean
that the two versions are equally valid or reliable.
> > Religious
> > conservatives have mounted a long running social and political campaign
to
> > get their falsified dogma treated as the truth, despite the absence of
any
> > material or logical support for their position.
>
> ah, here we go, this is really just thinly-disguised conservative-bashing.
Are all conservatives "religious conservatives"? Where's the objective
support for their position that is so rudely overlooked by the above
assessment? And the part about a long-running social and political campaign
is a factual observation; the religious conservatives are the ones who
decided that a "culture war" is underway.
> You know the ironic thing? Lots of Americans have fought and died so
> that this guy can say these things ;)
Another ironic thing: Thomas Jefferson cut up a copy of the gospels to
remove all references to Jesus being divine or the son of God, and now some
on the religious right attempt to quote him in support of the myth that the
United States was founded as a "Christian Nation." (Jefferson himself
observed that the basis for U.S. law is the British Common Law, which began
several generations before the Christianization of Britain.)
Stephen Bruun
news:1123012183.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How does one put aside prejudice to make an open minded assessment?
For starters, one could begin with an open mind by saying "let's see what
the Bible says," instead of starting from a position of prejudice by saying
"let's explain why the Bible is correct and accurate."
Stephen Bruun
> > And as for this latest example of Texan fuckwittery
"me may" <dualsc...@PSPlad.xbox360lad> wrote in message
news:iiNHe.7301$r12.5865@trndny04...
> Generalizing Texans as a whole....how very trollish of you Steve.
Yeah, that's like using the phrase "Massachusetts liberal" as though
"Massachusetts" were a derogatory adjective.
Teakbois
<THATshrubn...@verizon.net> muttered:
Yeah, but with that fact in hand, Sullivan can't blindy lump everyone
into a pre-defined stereotype.....oh wait, he still can, never mind.
Teakbois
<THATshrubn...@verizon.net> muttered:
>"Mike Smith" <mikeUNDER...@acm.org> wrote in message
Or, you could argue about it here.
Teakbois
muttered:
>I doesn't matter what they teach. It will take more than The Bible to
>cure Texas. I'm glad I don't have to live there. They ottu put a big
>wall around Texas to keep those people locked in.
Are you stereotyping all Texans now? Maybe they listen to rap too.
Teakbois
<ssu...@panix.com> muttered:
>Terrell Miller <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> >>As you should know, sir, Texas is not only its own confederation, but it is
>> >>it's own planet. :) Unfortunately, on this fine Texas soil, there are a
>> >>handful of nutjobs along with us fine upstanding sensible people. It should
>> >>be noted Odessa is more than 600 mi from any of Texas' major metropolitans,
>> >>where almost 3/4's of the state's population resides (it's 250 mi from El
>> >>Paso, but that's El Paso...).
>> >
>> >
>> > Funny, Terrell says they're just *fans of democracy*.
>> >
>> > *cough*bullshit*cough*
>
>> one city is determining what kinds of subjects they want their children
>> to be exposed to in high school.
>
>> Sounds like democracy to me, Steve. As opposed to us Seaboard
>> intellectual types making a Solomonic decision about it for them...
>
>
>Yeah, I realize it 'sounds like' all that to you. That's why
>I'm wondering -- are you *deaf* as well as dumb?
Did you hear that the More Drama tour is off?
M
NP: Flower Kings - "Deaf, Dumb and Blind"
Teakbois
>
>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>
>> ...NASA has 'proved' that the sun
>> stopped in the sky for a day or two...
>>
>
>Wish the sun to stand still
How dare you try to post something related to Yes in this science vs.
religion newsgroup!!
Teakbois
<mikeUNDER...@acm.org> muttered:
>Terrell Miller wrote:
>>
>> End result? Democracy rules, baby.
>>
>
>The truth is not subject to democracy. If I were to push you off a
>cliff, would your life be spared by the outcome of an vote?
Thats a useful comparison.
Teakbois
<THATshrubn...@verizon.net> muttered:
>"Terrell Miller" <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:h3LHe.1744$0p....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>> so it's okay for biology classes to ignore creationism but it's not okay
>> for a Bible studies class to ignore evolution? Bullshit.
>
>Biology classes ignore creationism because creationism is utterly devoid of
>scientific support.
>
>Rather than a "Bible" class, I think it would make more sense to have an
>elective class that discusses the creation stories of many different
>religions - without getting into bald-face lies like the ridiculous NASA
>story mentioned in the article.
>
Or, teach it at Sunday school.
>> > "The
>> > distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible -
>> > it has to be taught academically, not devotionally."
>>
>> fair enough, except if you taught the Bible studies course academically,
>> the atheists would be pissing their pants that the course is taking
>> creationism for granted and not presenting it with the proper skepticism.
>
>The difference is between teaching "the earth was made in six days" and "the
>Bible says that the earth was made in six days." Also, teaching the Bible
>academically involves more than just reading it. One must also study the
>history of the region where the Bible was written, and discuss the various
>theories about how the book came together (e.g., the documentary
>hypothesis).
And why not learn about it at Sunday School?
Teakbois
>
>Chris Jemmett wrote:
>
>>
>> Putting aside all nasty characterizations and personal prejudices, I
>> really cannot see a way to defend this "The Bible in History and
>> Literature" course.
>
>
>How does one put aside prejudice to make an open minded assessment?
You're asking the wrong group of people.
Teakbois
<ssu...@panix.com> muttered:
>Chris Jemmett <ccje...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> > here's a link to the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund critique of the
>> > public school elective course being touted by Jeebus-slobbering real
>> > estate agents in Texas as an 'academic' course on the bible -- the
>> > National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools' "The Bible in
>> > History and Literature"....critiqued by a guy who actually *does* teach
>> > academic courses on the bible for a living:
>
>> > http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/BibleCurriculum.pdf
>
>> Putting aside all nasty characterizations and personal prejudices, I
>> really cannot see a way to defend this "The Bible in History and
>> Literature" course.
>
>
>But I bet *this doofus* could see a way:
>
>
>Bush endorses teaching "intelligent design" in schools
>
Does it take intelligence to recognize intelligence? (or am I asking
the wrong group of people)
Mike Smith
Is AMY allowed in Texas?
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
That's a useful comment.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>
>> Here's what the debate is about.
>>
>> Scientists have established the fact of evolution
>
>
> nope
>
> Science *does not* establish "facts".
Sure it does. Meanwhile, that's not *all* it does. But anyway, that's
not what he said. Scientists *have* established the *fact* of evolution
- they have seen it happen in real-time, and have even *made* it happen
in real-time.
> Science carefully (in theory, at
> least, though that doesn't always happen in RL) weighs the evidence for
> and against a theorem,
Theory.
> and then develops its best guess at the moment of
> which way the evidence points.
>
> that is *all* that science ever does and ever has done.
No, it also establishes facts. Without facts, upon what would we base
our conclusions about theories? The scientific method requires *both*
hypothesis *and* experimentation or fact-finding.
> What proponents of science often forget/ignore is this: simultaneously
> the biggest virtue and shortcoming of science is that it will abandon
> long-held beliefs on a moment's notice (again, theoretically) if new
> evidence emerges that disproves an old theory.
In what way is it a shortcoming to be able to accept that long-held
theories turn out to be wrong?
> There's nothing "fact"-based about this process, it's just very bright
> people making their best efforts to understand partially-glimpsed facets
> of the universe.
And this process of understanding somehow occurs in the absence of
facts? You're not actually *in* the science game, are you?
> In fact, one of the biggest lies that anybody will ever tell you is that
> "scientists now know that..."
>
> Funny how what scientists now "know" keeps changing redically over the
> years, and often flatly contradicts what scientists "knew" in the past.
As opposed to religious dogmatists, who always "know" the same old stuff.
>> with thousands of lines of evidence and the work of hundreds of
>> thousands of researchers. This idea is based on material evidence and
>> repeated experiment, extensively documented in the scientific literature.
>>
>> This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts.
>
>
> which flatly contradict evolution. Loop.
Religious accounts are not scientific evidence. They are the
epistemological equivalent of shouting "Nuh-uh!!!".
>> Religious conservatives have mounted a long running social and
>> political campaign to get their falsified dogma treated as the truth,
>> despite the absence of any material or logical support for their
>> position.
>
>
> ah, here we go, this is really just thinly-disguised conservative-bashing.
Well, when the crowbar fits...
>> This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting
>> faith-based bullshit taught as science.
>
> yep, here come the emotionally-tinged judgemental words, right on schedule.
Well, sorry, Terrell, but anti-intellectual travesties of the sort now
happening in Texas do tend to arouse some emotions.
--
Mike Smith
Teakbois
<mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> muttered:
That's a useful post
Steven Sullivan
> "Terrell Miller" <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:g4RHe.3462$Mo....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > What proponents of science often forget/ignore is this: simultaneously
> > the biggest virtue and shortcoming of science is that it will abandon
> > long-held beliefs on a moment's notice (again, theoretically) if new
> > evidence emerges that disproves an old theory.
> Why is it a shortcoming to abandon a disproven hypothesis?
> And it's hardly at "a moment's notice." It generally takes years for a
> truly radical new idea to replace a discredited older one. Witness string
> theory; it's been around for years and there is still spirited argument over
> whether it accurately reflects reality.
Unlike evolutionary biology, string theory's still a purely theoretical
field. So there's a problem when you need to disprove one or more
alternative yet internally-consistent models.
In light of this thread there's an amusing article in the NY Times today
about a half-serious attempt to 'decide' an issue in string theory by
democratic vote -- by scientists and mathematicians at a conference, not
scientifically-uninformed yahoos waving their Bibles. Science remains
necessarily elitist in that regard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02stri.html?
Lacking Hard Data, Theorists Try Democracy
TORONTO - Science is not done by popular vote. But nothing can be taken
for granted when string theory is the subject.
So when Stephen Shenker, a Stanford University theorist who was moderating
a panel discussion here on the future of the putative theory of
everything, asked for a show of hands on the fate of a strange number
known as the cosmological constant, some 400 physicists and mathematicians
were happy to swallow their doubts and vote.
....
> > In fact, one of the biggest lies that anybody will ever tell you is that
> > "scientists now know that..."
> Not a phrase I hear often. I hear "scientists now believe..." or
> "scientists now say..." or "the evidence now indicates..." but I don't hear
> the "know" thing much.
And even if you do hear it, any scientist, and anyone who understands
science, will happily agree that 'know', in this case means, believes to
be true based on best current evidence. Which as it happens is usually
lot more evidence than what exists for the things nonscientists claim to
'know'. Like all that god stuff, 'frinstance.
> Another ironic thing: Thomas Jefferson cut up a copy of the gospels to
> remove all references to Jesus being divine or the son of God, and now some
> on the religious right attempt to quote him in support of the myth that the
> United States was founded as a "Christian Nation." (Jefferson himself
> observed that the basis for U.S. law is the British Common Law, which began
> several generations before the Christianization of Britain.)
Here's a book the Odessa yoiks shoudl add to their curriculum:
Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
by Sysan Jacoby
Steven Sullivan
Massachusetts liberals are the *worstest*. And they talk funny too.
Steven Sullivan
Any group with 'interfaith' in its name has to be just a bunch of
goddamn liberals.
Teakbois
<ssu...@panix.com> muttered:
>Stephen Bruun <THATshrubn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Michael Lord" <zork...@aol.REMOVEcom> wrote in message
>> news:dcnp3j$eu46$1...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
>> > I saw this article myself. It makes me wonder why other
>> Christian/Catholic
>> > groups don't stand up against this either, since it seems to me to be the
>> > extremist Christians who are going forward with much of this.
>
>> Many moderate Christians do, in fact, oppose this sort of thing. Groups
>> like the Interfaith Alliance are actively working to make it known that the
>> fringe fundamentalists do not speak for the faith as a whole.
>
>Any group with 'interfaith' in its name has to be just a bunch of
>goddamn liberals.
Sounds like a stereotype to me.
Arne
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Surely an academic course about the Bible would talk about how it was
> > written, so issues like how the Pentateuch was constructed from four
> > sources (E, J, D and P) under the documentary hypothesis, the
> > construction of the foundation myth of the united kingdom, the creation
> > of monotheism and centralised worship, the move to individual rights,
> > what matches and what doesn't between Old Testament and archaeology,
> > the context for the Gospels and their relationship to each other, the
> > epistles and who wrote what, the early Christian debates about what to
> > include in the New Testament, the Catholic apocrypha...
>
> Apparently the importance of teaching how NASA has 'proved' that the sun
> stopped in the sky for a day or two takes precedence over all that
> nonsense.
>
Ah, but....
1. NASA is headed by political appointees and funded by an inherently
political process, and....
2. NASA is largely situated in Texas.
In other words...don't be so sure.
Steven Sullivan
Now *this* should be fun.
This year the Geological Society of America's annual meeting will include
a final-day symposium called:
Is it Science? Strategies for Addressing Creationism in the Classroom and
the Community
see the abstracts here:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/session_16171.htm
It's encouraging to see some of the participants calling for
a strong, no-holds-barred offense against what is obviously a
viciously *political* anti-science movement, e.g.:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_92960.htm
INTELLIGENT (INCOMPETENT ?) DESIGN VERSUS EVOLUTION: NEW TACTICS FOR
SCIENCE (?)
WISE, Donald U., Geosciences, Univ of Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA 01003, dw...@geo.umass.edu.
Recognition is long overdue by the scientific community that creationism/
intelligent design is a well-organized, very effective political movement
attempting to strike at the very heart of Science itself. Traditional
methods of polite debate need to be replaced with rough and tumble
political rules. (1) Don't waste time defending your position. (2) Focus
on a few weak points of the opposition. (3) KISS (Keep it simple, stupid).
(4) Stick to irrefutable facts with obvious relation to evolution and
close relationship to individual voters. (Yes, voters are our real
audience.) (5) Relentlessly repeat a few critical soundbites. The courts
have defined Creationism as religion so Science's past battles were
commonly seen as attacks on sacred cows. Now ID has freed Science from
these constraints by arguing very narrowly that intelligence exists in
nature's designs but makes no mention of theological implications. Thus,
Science need only show lack of intelligence in nature's designs, the human
frame being a prime example. One's frame is certainly close enough to the
individual voter and contains obvious design defects easily explained by
evolution but embarrassing for IDers. (1) Our pelvis slopes forward for
knuckle dragging like all the great apes. Only by an extremely sharp bend
of our spine can we stand erect: an evolutionary artifact or a design
weakness obvious to any first-year engineering student? (2) Our mouths
have too many teeth: either the result of an evolutionarily flattened
mammalian muzzle or a design plan that couldn't count accurately above
twenty? (3) Our facial bones are squashed by an expanded brain case to
produce a sinus drainage system that would embarrass the local plumber:
evolution or just plain stupid design? Branding ID as Incompetent Design
involves both humor and grit but avoids direct insult to the opposition, a
mistake to be avoided in any political campaign. All the tools of
political campaigns should be used: slogans, songs, bumper stickers
(“Human skeletal errors: Incompetent Design or Evolution ?”), IDers will
attempt to take us off-message with debates on origins of life,
thermodynamics, etc., but instead we must continue to pound simple themes
of obvious design failures. Science can win this battle only if we
recognize this is not a Sunday school debating match but a deadly serious
political contest.
//
Interesting too that the GSA has a 'Young Earth Creationist' participating
too (one who actually studied under Stephen Jay Gould, from waht I'm
told). This species of religious nutjob believes that the earth was
created 6,000 years ago 'cos it kinda sorta says so in the Bible. *His*
abstract is astonishingly candid in its admission that Young Earth
Creationists like himself are simply impermeable to *evidence* and
*reason* if they conflict with the Bible. The Q&A session for this
one should be *priceless*:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_96736.htm
SUGGESTIONS FOR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE OF CREATIONISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS IN
THE CLASSROOM .
WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7802, Dayton, TN
37321-7000, wi...@bryancore.org.
The logarithmic-like increase in the number of young-age creation (YAC)
books published since 1800, the increase in number of books written by
YACists with earned doctorates, the growth in number of YAC professional
organizations and YAC professional conferences and YAC professional
journals, as well as the results of Gallop Polls since 1980, all suggest
that YACism is thriving in the U.S. YACists will compose a significant
minority of students in classrooms at all levels for decades to come. Thus
it is suggested that educators develop methods which encourage peaceful
coexistence between creationists and evolutionists in the classroom.
A survey of textbooks indicates that virtually all make incorrect
statements about creationism which YACists find inflammatory. Since
history indicates that Christianity has expanded during times of
persecution and many specific legal battles perpetrated by YACists are in
response to inflammatory comments, suggestions of higher antagonism
against creationists would likely be counterproductive. Rather, it is
recommended that educators increase the accuracy and sensitivity of
comments about YACism. Consultation with competent YACists can lead to
increased accuracy without having to include YAC claims.
Since YAC epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and
human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against
YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists. This is
consistent with repeated examples of YACists receiving the highest
training as YACists, as well as the growth of the YAC movement despite
better arguments against creation and for evolution. For the YACists in
the classroom, acceptance of evolution is not an achievable educational
goal. At the same time, teaching of alternative positions (including
evolution) is embraced in virtually every YAC institution. Therefore,
improving arguments and evidences for evolution will strengthen
evolutionary claims without enraging YACists. The education goal
recommended is increased familiarity with evolution and its evidences,
while evaluation should be based upon cognitive knowledge, and not
beliefs.
gmelin
> But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers
> trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it
> ignores evolution in favor of creationism
Well, since it's essentially a lit class, and evolution belongs in a
science class, there doesn't seem to be a problem. I teach a literary
criticism class and, shockingly, we also ignore evolution. We also
ignore Newtonian physics, the digestive process and the nature of the
atom. On the other hand, we do discuss Freud, Karl Marx and the
differences between men and women(related as they are to
psychoanalytic, socio-political and gender theory, respectively). A
class that studies the Bible will presumably take up the Biblical
creation story. See how the curriculum is determined by the subject?
> Elizabeth Ridenour, a commercial real estate broker who said she formed
> the nonprofit organization in 1993 after deciding that she had long been
> "duped" into believing the Bible could not be taught in public schools,
> said the course has stayed within legal limits. "Our teachers are not to
> say, 'This is the truth,' or that the Bible is infallible," she said.
> "They are to say, 'This is what the Bible says; draw your own
> conclusions.' "
That doesn't go far enough. The objective should be, "Here's what it
says, and here are some of the many ways it has been and can be
interpreted." Leaving the students to interpret something without
having taught them interpretive strategies is irresponsible.
> In one teaching unit, students are told, "Throughout most of the last
> 2,000 years, the majority of men living in the Western world have accepted
> the statements of the Scriptures as genuine."
This statement is, of course, essentially correct.
gmelin
gmelin
Some Guy wrote:
> Well, that's quite a spin. I think the problem is that the folks in Odessa
> have no intention of offering such an objective view of the text. I have no
> problem offering up the bible (when appropriate) as the basis for killing in
> the name of God,
That's not exactly an objective spin either. I guess it's okay to talk
about the Bible as long as one is trashing it.
gmelin
gmelin
Stephen Bruun wrote:
> The Bible is an enormously influential collection of documents, and schools
> shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. That being said, the proper place to
> examine the text, objectively, is in a literature class,
It would also be suitable for a philosophy class, and, in certain ways,
a history class, not as a document that presents history, but as a text
that has been a significant *part* of history. Such texts are often
the best record we have of particular cultures.
preferably compared
> with other religious texts from other cultures, both ancient and modern,
> ranging from the Enuma Elish to the Bhagavad-Gita to Dianetics.
Not necessarily. That would be a comparitive religion class, but in a
lit class there need not be such a broad range of material. There are
lit classes that focus on American literature, French literature, 19th
century literature, romantic literature, epic literature . . . hell, in
college they offer courses devoted to a single author. A course
focused on analyzing the Bible would have plenty of material to draw
on.
gmelin
gmelin
Teakbois wrote:
> Yeah, but with that fact in hand, Sullivan can't blindy lump everyone
> into a pre-defined stereotype.....oh wait, he still can, never mind.
and
> Sounds like a stereotype to me.
and
> Generic stereotyping is a common pratice on this newsgroup.
What the hell is wrong with you? You need to change the record, dude,
this one's gotten old.
gmelin
gmelin
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Surely an academic course about the Bible would talk about how it was
> written, so issues like how the Pentateuch was constructed from four
> sources (E, J, D and P) under the documentary hypothesis, the
> construction of the foundation myth of the united kingdom, the creation
> of monotheism and centralised worship, the move to individual rights,
> what matches and what doesn't between Old Testament and archaeology,
> the context for the Gospels and their relationship to each other, the
> epistles and who wrote what, the early Christian debates about what to
> include in the New Testament, the Catholic apocrypha...
>
> three major Abrahamic religions, Judaeism, Christianity and Islam, and
> its influence on other religions. Then its influence on Western
> history, particularly in terms of the law and constitutional affairs.
> One could also talk about its significance as literature across
> history.
>
> Then one might talk about different approaches to the text taken
> through history and by modern groups, as part of which one would
> address the recent invention of "Biblical literalism" and the
> consequent social clashes in some parts of the world, which would
> include reference to "Creationism".
That's a hell of a lot to include in a single class, particularly one
that ostensibly a lit class. What you've laid out draws from nearly
half a dozen distinct disciplines.
> I mean, that's what you'd get in a theology course at university.
Out of curiousity, what exactly is the curriculum goal of a university
theology class?
So,
> yes, I would want to mention evolution in a course on the Bible, but
> only as a tiny part of that course and only to say, "Kids, of course
> you know from your science class that evolution explains the diversity
> of life on Earth. Today, we're going to look at how a pseudo-science
> called 'Creationism' came to be so politically contentious."
Way to load the language in that introduction.
gmelin
gmelin
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > let me ask you this, Henry: did you get anything remotely resembling a
> > graduate-level course in your primary education (sorry, I don't know the
> > English equivalent of High School)?
>
> I did, at a Catholic High School. They're called AP courses.
*snort* AP=graduate level? Yeah, right. The only thing more of a
joke than AP courses are AP exams. I taught AP English and the
recommended curriculum was ludicrous. To do it by AP standards would
have been to offer a whole year of nothing but explications of
metaphysical and romantic poetry. I had a TA one semester who was in a
"regular" senior English class and thought it was quite a bit harder
than what her friends in AP were doing.
> > Of course not, you go the watered-down version that you and your
> > classmates were capable of handling at the time.
>
> So, do you recommend teaching Biblical tales as truth
> as a 'watered down' version of science? Or even as a watered
> down version of an 'academic' study of the Bible?
No, he probably recommends teaching a high school-level course, rather
than the university theology class Henry described.
gmelin
gmelin
Mike Smith wrote:
> > What is Truth?
>
> That which exists regardless of your belief or disbelief of it, is not
> subject to vote, and doesn't care what you think of it.
No, that's "fact." There is a distinction.
gmelin
gmelin
Stephen Bruun wrote:
> The difference is between teaching "the earth was made in six days" and "the
> Bible says that the earth was made in six days." Also, teaching the Bible
> academically involves more than just reading it. One must also study the
> history of the region where the Bible was written, and discuss the various
> theories about how the book came together (e.g., the documentary
> hypothesis).
Not necessarily, particularly if it's approached as a work of
literature. It may not be necessary to examine its origins at all,
depending on how much one follows the "New Criticism" (now over half a
century old) and/or poststructuralist theory.
gmelin
gmelin
Stephen Bruun wrote:
> "rojon" <Rojo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1123012183.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > How does one put aside prejudice to make an open minded assessment?
>
> the Bible says," instead of starting from a position of prejudice by saying
> "let's explain why the Bible is correct and accurate."
I assume you agree with me that the use of phrases like
"Jeebus-droolers" also suggests a position of prejudice?
gmelin
gmelin
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> from the always excellent Dr. PZ Myers' site www.pharyngula.com:
>
> Oh, yeah, and we also have to work to make sure that every goddamned
> Republican in our capitols is out on their ear in the next couple of
> election cycles. The root of our problem is that the know-nothings and
> lunatics are in power, and are trying to wreck anything that does not
> pander to their ideology â €"and science opposes the Republican agenda.
Yeah, that's objective . . .
gmelin
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > let me ask you this, Henry: did you get anything remotely resembling a
> > > graduate-level course in your primary education (sorry, I don't know the
> > > English equivalent of High School)?
> >
> > I did, at a Catholic High School. They're called AP courses.
> *snort* AP=graduate level? Yeah, right.
No, *remotely resembling graduate level*. You bet. I've done grad school
too. Intro Cell Biology (grad) and AP Bio (has) had plenty in common.
> The only thing more of a
> joke than AP courses are AP exams.
Not in 1978, they weren't.
> I taught AP English and the
> recommended curriculum was ludicrous. To do it by AP standards would
> have been to offer a whole year of nothing but explications of
> metaphysical and romantic poetry. I had a TA one semester who was in a
> "regular" senior English class and thought it was quite a bit harder
> than what her friends in AP were doing.
Sucks to be gmelin.
> > > Of course not, you go the watered-down version that you and your
> > > classmates were capable of handling at the time.
> >
> > So, do you recommend teaching Biblical tales as truth
> > as a 'watered down' version of science? Or even as a watered
> > down version of an 'academic' study of the Bible?
> No, he probably recommends teaching a high school-level course, rather
> than the university theology class Henry described.
Apparently you equate that with 'watered down'. Sucks to be gmelin.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > from the always excellent Dr. PZ Myers' site www.pharyngula.com:
> >
> > Oh, yeah, and we also have to work to make sure that every goddamned
> > Republican in our capitols is out on their ear in the next couple of
> > election cycles. The root of our problem is that the know-nothings and
> > lunatics are in power, and are trying to wreck anything that does not
> > pander to their ideology ? ?"and science opposes the Republican agenda.
> Yeah, that's objective . . .
Psst...he also thinks you're a twit.
gmelin
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Terrell Miller <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Science *does not* establish "facts". Science carefully (in theory, at
> > least, though that doesn't always happen in RL) weighs the evidence for
> > which way the evidence points.
>
>
> biologist, btw.
So? That doesn't automatically make his objectivity above question.
He's a political ranter, which makes him more difficult to respect.
But no doubt you can teach him a thing or two about
> science, eh?
What he needs to learn is how to present a reasonable argument that
doesn't devolve into a political screed.
gmelin
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
>
> <snip a fascinating curriculum>
>
> > I mean, that's what you'd get in a theology course at university. So,
> > yes, I would want to mention evolution in a course on the Bible, but
> > only as a tiny part of that course and only to say, "Kids, of course
> > you know from your science class that evolution explains the diversity
> > of life on Earth. Today, we're going to look at how a pseudo-science
> > called 'Creationism' came to be so politically contentious."
> >
> > doing anything like that...
>
> let me ask you this, Henry: did you get anything remotely resembling a
> graduate-level course in your primary education (sorry, I don't know the
> English equivalent of High School)?
>
> classmates were capable of handling at the time.
Sure, but you could still cover the same sorts of issues. I teach
myself at postgraduate level, but I also help tutor my Mum's 12-year
old goddaughter. Obviously you present the material differently, but
there's nothing I mentioned that couldn't be explained to a 12 year
old. An honest course about the Bible for kids -- rather than covert
evangelical propaganda -- could still look at when the Bible was
written and the key ideas and events that influenced its construction
(for the Torah and then for the New Testament). You could look at
different religions' views of the Bible and different groups' within
Christianity. You could look at the Bible as literature. You could look
at different approaches to the Bible.
Even at a younger age (under-10s), kids in the UK will often have
comparative religion classes where they compare the stories associated
with different religious festivals. I think that's great, although
obviously it pisses off religious fundamentalists.
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
[...]
> > In one teaching unit, students are told, "Throughout most of the last
> > 2,000 years, the majority of men living in the Western world have accepted
> > the statements of the Scriptures as genuine."
>
> This statement is, of course, essentially correct.
The interpretive approach taken to the Bible and the conclusions
reached, however, have changed considerably and the views of modern
Biblical literalists in the Protestant tradition are not representative
of those of the majority of men living in the Western world for the
last 2000 years.
--
Henry
Stephen Bruun
news:eca0f11gbjbt1gsq8...@4ax.com...
> And why not learn about it at Sunday School?
Anytime someone wants to talk about how great the Bible is, or how factually
correct the Bible is, or discuss the Bible to the exclusion of other
religious texts, Sunday school is the best place to do it, no argument here.
In a religiously neutral academic setting, I believe it is possible to
discuss religion without endorsing or condemning it; but the proposed
curriculum that touched off this thread was clearly not intended for that
purpose. If the description is at all accurate, it was a midweek Sunday
school class. Anyone who insists that their child can't survive six hours
without religious indoctrination is free to send their kid to a private
school - and pay for it themselves.
--
To reply, get rid of THAT THING
Stephen Bruun
> Terrell Miller wrote:
> > Science *does not* establish "facts".
"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:11f0cgv...@news.supernews.com...
> Sure it does.
"Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." . . . In science, "fact" can
only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional assent."
- Stephen Jay Gould
Stephen Bruun
> > teaching the Bible
> > academically involves more than just reading it. One must also study
the
> > history of the region where the Bible was written, and discuss the
various
> > theories about how the book came together (e.g., the documentary
> > hypothesis).
"gmelin" <gme...@scc.losrios.edu> wrote in message
news:1123052584.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Not necessarily, particularly if it's approached as a work of
> literature. It may not be necessary to examine its origins at all,
> depending on how much one follows the "New Criticism" (now over half a
> century old) and/or poststructuralist theory.
Depends on how "academically" you want to study it. Reading a book is not
academic study of that book. Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man" doesn't make
sense without a general understanding of the social/historical context in
which it was written. I'm sure the same applies to the Bible. In each
case, the book is a product of its time, rather than a mysterious artifact
that suddenly appeared from nowhere. In the case of the Bible, I think it
would also be instructive to examine precursor works like the Enuma Elish
because that gives a clearer idea of where many of the themes in the Bible
came from.
Stephen Bruun
> I assume you agree with me that the use of phrases like
> "Jeebus-droolers" also suggests a position of prejudice?
No doubt there's been plenty of inflammatory language from that camp in this
thread.
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> > Terrell Miller wrote
> > > Science *does not* establish "facts".
>
> Mike Smith <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote
>
> "Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." . . . In science, "fact" can
> only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
> withhold provisional assent."
>
> - Stephen Jay Gould
I.e. science does establish facts in so far as the word 'fact' is
generally used, although if one wants to get philosophical about it,
science's epistemology is more complicated than that. A nice discussion
of this is at <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html>.
--
Henry
Teakbois
muttered:
I atgree with that, especially since the person who uses the phrase
the most on this group has shown a level of bigotry time and again on
this newsgroup.
Jeremy Weissenburger
Bruun" <THATshrubn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael Lord" <zork...@aol.REMOVEcom> wrote in message
> news:dcnp3j$eu46$1...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
>> I saw this article myself. It makes me wonder why other
>> Christian/Catholic groups don't stand up against this either, since it seems
>> to me to be the extremist Christians who are going forward with much of this.
>
> Many moderate Christians do, in fact, oppose this sort of thing. Groups
> like the Interfaith Alliance are actively working to make it known that the
> fringe fundamentalists do not speak for the faith as a whole.
Unfortunately, THAT doesn't seem to be reported in the news.
--Jeremy
--
"Our guests are not encouraged to fight, they are encouraged to search for
world peace." -- Jerry Springer
Some Guy
You have taken MY comment completely out of context. I was responding to
THIS:
>Last time I checked, it has been the source of endless wars, murders, etc.
rojon
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> It's encouraging to see some of the participants calling for
> a strong, no-holds-barred offense against what is obviously a
> viciously *political* anti-science movement
Blind opposition is actually a weakness.
>
>
> SUGGESTIONS FOR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE OF CREATIONISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS IN
> THE CLASSROOM .
> WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7802, Dayton, TN
Bryan College, as in William Jennings Bryan? And in Dayton, Tennessee?
Mike Smith
Pardon my befuddlement - are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
--
Mike Smith
DAVID RHEAULT
>comparitive religion class,
Is it "comparitive" or "comparative?"
How about a class in orthography?
dcr
Terrell Miller
>> "Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." . . . In science, "fact"
>> can
>> only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
>> withhold provisional assent."
>>
>> - Stephen Jay Gould
>
>
> Pardon my befuddlement - are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Yes
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again".
-Entertainment Weekly
Terrell Miller
>> Science carefully (in theory, at least, though that doesn't always
>> happen in RL) weighs the evidence for and against a theorem,
>
>
> Theory.
theor*em*, as in Fermat's, Pythagorean, T-, etc. etc.
>> and then develops its best guess at the moment of which way the
>> evidence points.
>>
>> that is *all* that science ever does and ever has done.
>
>
> No, it also establishes facts. Without facts, upon what would we base
> our conclusions about theories?
Test results, mostly. Experimental data. And I hate to tell you, but
there is very little "fact" about lab results, human interpretation
plays a huge part.
>> What proponents of science often forget/ignore is this: simultaneously
>> the biggest virtue and shortcoming of science is that it will abandon
>> long-held beliefs on a moment's notice (again, theoretically) if new
>> evidence emerges that disproves an old theory.
>
>
> In what way is it a shortcoming to be able to accept that long-held
> theories turn out to be wrong?
the shortcoming isn't accepting new theories...it's simply that the
long-held theories ("scientists now know that...") were *wrong*.
But as far as anyone knew at the time, they were *fact*.
See the picture a little better now?
>> There's nothing "fact"-based about this process, it's just very bright
>> people making their best efforts to understand partially-glimpsed
>> facets of the universe.
>
>
> And this process of understanding somehow occurs in the absence of
> facts? You're not actually *in* the science game, are you?
database developer for the CDC, actually. I'm not a scientist, but I
have a lot of friends who are.
And for the record:
1) I'm a good Methodist
2) I fully believe that evolution happens
3) I am inherently pro-science
4) I am also inherently pro-religion
5) science does not have all the answers
6) neither does any randomly selected religion
7) no, I'm not a nihilist either
8) "not a nihilist" would make me...? <g>
>> In fact, one of the biggest lies that anybody will ever tell you is
>> that "scientists now know that..."
>>
>> Funny how what scientists now "know" keeps changing redically over the
>> years, and often flatly contradicts what scientists "knew" in the past.
>
>
> As opposed to religious dogmatists, who always "know" the same old stuff.
yup, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong
>>> This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting
>>> faith-based bullshit taught as science.
>>
>>
>> yep, here come the emotionally-tinged judgemental words, right on
>> schedule.
>
>
> Well, sorry, Terrell, but anti-intellectual travesties of the sort now
> happening in Texas do tend to arouse some emotions.
"travesty", eh?
BTW - there is nothing inherently wrong with anti-intellectualism.
Intelligence is just one of many tools that human beings have acquired
over the millennia, it *is not* an end in itself. And when all's said
and done, it may not even be the most important tool we have.