Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:48:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1443 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
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 pointed at had 1 such tidbit I noticed (that geologic evidence in a
couple places looked like certain bits happened in catastrophe's rather than
gradually), but it had nothing else short of refutation of the "regular"
erosionist theories. But suppose there *were* more slight bits of evidence in
that line, which, although not numerous, and explainable in other ways by
science, still pointed to a conclusion that just happened to mesh with the
religious argument of being created by the Flood?
IOW, taking a true scientific approach towards a conclusion that just happens to
also be religious. Does the fact that it coincides with religion, or that the
theory itself was inspired by a religious belief change the scientific
legitimacy of the theory, thereby making it unconstitutional? If the book is
actually written scientifically (and I'm not saying it is), is it not still
valid?
> 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.
Oh, totally true-- and like I said, it's a potential pitfall for Bush, because
it's both true, and spinnable in a way that makes him look dumber than he is
(imagine that!)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Honestly, that's a great question! Creationists have never actually submitted anything for peer review, so if the book were indeed written using scientific methods of inquiry, then it would be greatly beneficial to them to put it up for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Well since any crackpot out there can make up his/her own theories, the first step to gaining scientific credibility is to present the theory for peer review - typically by submitting an article to "the literature" journals. This allows for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Ha ha ha, well, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but the thought occurred to me that this almost seems to go into a realm related to Moral Relativism. Instead of seeing morals as relative, we are seeing the scientific evidence in (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
