Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:31:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1335 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
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
measurable gains that it gets out of scientific research?
IOW if there were some scientists researching something that wouldn't help the
US government, even if they succeeded, should it be funded, simply because it's
"scientific"?
Not that you actually stated that, so maybe I'm just attacking your straw man,
in which case: "Take that, straw man!"
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Because geologic theory is based in testable science rather than non-testable religion, and the Fed's choice to endorse an article of religious faith is manifestly unconstitutional. Even the claim made elsewhere that Dubya himself didn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Because religious research shouldn't be confused with scientific research and it shouldn't pretend to be. One is legitimate science that can produce beneficial results (in medicine, engineering, technology etc) - which represents a gain to our (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
