Sorry. I was blinded by the first part of your paragraph and that is to
which I was responding.
>It is commonly stated (and taught) that science and religion
>deal with separate realms of reality. Let's call this position
>X. But judging from Scott's speech (and the opinions that both
>you and Chris have shared in this thread), the truth of position X
>depends on the religion you are talking about. In other words,
>position X better describes some religions than others. Thus,
>those who teach position X are promoting certain religions
>over others. Thus, it is false that the schools
>are neutral with regards to religion as favoritism is inherent
>in position X. Thus it is deceptive to portray government
>schools as being neutral about religions.
ok. Gotcha. There is a common phrase in Lakota that translates as "We are
all one family." Since the building blocks of DNA are ATCG whether the
organism is yeast or our glorious selves, and this factoid supports the
theory of common descent, evolution obviously posits the same thing as the
Lakotas. Schools, then, according to your logic, are obviously giving
preference to one of the many native American religions also.
I think the reason I didn't get your point is because your point was a tad thin.
>You are sidestepping my point instead of dealing with it. But as
>for science documenting anything, may I remind you that scientists
>believe that cellular life forms existed that were once much simpler
>and much more messy than that which has been documented to
>exist? Should I also point out that science has never documented
>the existence of such simple, messy cells. So why isn't it also
>probably a myth?
evidence. There's no evidence at all which supports any important feature of
the first two books of Genesis.
>Could it be solely because science *needs* to
>propose such mythical entities? And they *sound* more real than
>talking snakes?
since some cells are simpler than others and there is no evidence at all for
talking snakes. Yep, they sound a tad more real than talking snakes.
>As for Genesis, I do agree with you.
thank you!
>>done just after birth. Seeing into the true nature of things and developing
>>and exhibiting compassion toward all living beings are just vastly more
>>important to them.
>
>Like I said, government schools are not neutral with regards to
>religion.
I agree, except that most American schools are saturated with Christianity.
In Oklahoma it is perfectly acceptable to wear a crucifix on a high school
campus, but recently an effort was made to ban the Star of David (might be a
gang symbol). And of course, the pentagram is absolutely forbidden even
though it is the central symbol of the perfectly legal Wiccan religion.
That neutratality just happens to match the neutrality of Buddhism isn't
much of a case.
Susan
>>And *anybody* with good ideas backed up by careful research and good data
>>is welcome at the table of science. If ID ever comes up with anything
>>besides "it looks designed to *me*" then IDers will be welcome at that
>>table also.
>
>I used to think like this when I was much younger. . . .
>Yet suddenly, we're supposed
>to take Susan's idealism seriously, as in science (so it goes), we
>find the one and only place where humans cease being humans.
>Sorry, Susan. I react to your claims about science (with these
>issues, mind you) as I react to those who blindly believe truth is
>what really matters in the legal system. Or look at it this way - you
>haven't a shred of evidence that indicates what you believe
>above is true (i.e., Origin Science in Pleasantville).
ah, but I have!!! :-) Any kind of solid scientific research which racks up
good evidence will eventually find a following. It's happened many times in
the past. Darwin had to back his theory with many years of careful research
and he had to present that research to a body of his peers. The same was
true of genetic research. The same was true with geology and the tectonic
plate theory.
>Translation: Your idealism is noted, but I'm talking about reality.
if Intelligent design (supernatural intervention) can come up with
*anything* that can be backed up with solid evidence it will eventually be
accepted. Even I would insist on it.
>Susan:
>
>>perhaps you can explain why it matters to biblical literalists that life is
>>found on other planets.
>
>Since I am not a biblical literalist, why are you asking me?
>Well?
you possibly know about the issue than I do. You hang out with those guys,
you read their stuff. I don't. I still haven't figured it out.
>>When the "Mars rock" was found a couple of years
>>ago, the creationists of the time went into full tilt Bart Simpson mode:
>>"It didn't happen, you didn't see it and you can't prove a thing. " It
>>confused the heck out of me at the time.
>
>Well, it turns out that skepticism was quite justified. The
>media likes to report on sensational findings, but never
>really follows up when those findings fall apart.
when I first heard about the "Mars Rock" I thought "well, that's
interesting. I'd sure like to see a lot more of them." In other words, one
rock does not a life form make. It's going to need a lot more supporting
evidence--like fossils in rocks actually found on Mars.
What the media does is out of control of most scientists. I give you
"Nebraska Man" as evidence of that!!
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb