Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:20:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1391 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> 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?
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 endorse the book doesn't make much difference--the buck stops with him,
presumably, so if he permits the book to be distributed via Federal funds, he's
endorsing it.
> 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"?
Good question. I know that a few people in this forum would shout "NO!" I
can't say that all "scientific" pursuits should be funded, but it's a mistake to
fund religious doctrine with Federal money in any case.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific methods? Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The article I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Why's that a good question? I thought the govt. was supposed to be workin for us, not just to perpetuate itself. (...) Wow, you guys'll argue over just about anything. On a relative scale this seems about as vital as wrangling over whether you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
