Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:17:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1285 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Avery Christy wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14313.shtml
> >
> > Grand Canyon made by Noah's flood?
> >
> > I don't even know where to begin...
> >
> > Do even Creationists believe that? Yet supposedly, as stated in the article,
> > Dubya supports that. This is the guy running the most powerful nation in the
> > world--"Grand Canyon created by Noah's flood..."
> >
> > K then...
> > (Dave backs away slowly from the crazy man)
> >
> > Dave K
>
> Okay, two things about this:
>
> One, the article makes this sound as if it was from Bush's own hand that this
> was allowed. Probably some bias there. But, this was from the administration.
> So, it could have been anyone under Bush acting to support the freedom of
> religious speech policy that Bush endorses. Bush has this policy to curry favor
> with Christian and Islamic groups by allowing them and anyone else to say what
> they want to say freely. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are what make
> this country so darn terrific.
>
> Two, I can tell you, having worked at a national monument, that it is very
> common to have works of fiction right alongside with the scientific stuff for
> sale in the visitor centers of every national monument in the U.S. as long as
> the fictional stuff has something to do with the monument or surrounding area or
> local history. As long as it sells and makes the Parks Department money, they
> will sell it.
>
> Does this make sense? Ask me for more if you want, I worked at a national
> monument and so am familiar with the policies that allowed that book to be
> there. This controversy probably started with someone saying, hey, this is a
> government place and we have a religious item here, what's with that? And then
> the current administration said, no, we have a freedom of speech policy for
> EVERYONE, that includes religious groups and so we will continue to sell the
> book along with the fiction and non-fiction that we already sell.
Hi Avery:
Thanks for the input re: sonar in the other thread.
Regarding this book--is it presented as a work of science or a work of fiction?
If the latter, then I don't really have a problem with it, as long as the
Federal Parks Service would allow a work of Islamic or Hindu fiction to be sold
alongside this Christian Creationist book. If the former, then it's clearly
inappropriate to disseminate religious pseudoscience under the guise of
Federally-endorsed scientific literature.
And let's be honest here: The Discovery Institute is one of the most dishonest
and deceptive organizations in the country, going to great lengths to spread
pseudoscience in an effort to further its own fringe fundamentalist religious
agenda. Once this book is formally available for sale in a Federally-funded
institution, the Institute will certainly claim this as some kind of Federal
endorsement of their crazy, anti-scientific mythology.
I absolutely support a person's right to pretend that the flood created the
Grand Canyon, but the government has no business giving its endorsement to a
work of religious mythology such as this one.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Hm. But the government DOES have business endorsing a book that would support the theory that the GC was created by erosion? Why should the government support NASA research (say), as opposed to religious research, apart from the actual (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Yah, you see there. You are asking the questions that the government does not want answered. I learned a little bit of government thinking in that job, and they don't address issues like that. Yes, now that this has been publicized it is (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Okay, two things about this: One, the article makes this sound as if it was from Bush's own hand that this was allowed. Probably some bias there. But, this was from the administration. So, it could have been anyone under Bush acting to support (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
