|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jason Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: Commentary: Separate religion, science by taking atheistic |
 |
|
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
BY SCOTT NELSON
On May 27, The Ann Arbor News published an editorial by the Washington Post
titled, "Teaching creationism: another ploy." That opinion equates three
things: "the existence of gravity," two plus two equals four,
and "evolutionary biology." This illustrates a confusion in the definition
of science. As long as the definition of science remains confused, and that
confusion is upheld in the public schools, "ploys" will continue. We can
categorize gravity and basic math as operations science. Part
of "evolutionary biology" is also operations science. It is the part that
observes variations within species. It is the part that Darwin observed and
we observe today.
Every example of "evolution" cited in the 2008 National Academy of Sciences
publication "Science, Evolution and Creationism" is simply within-species
variations. A chapter two headline in that publication states, "Many areas
of science have produced support for biological evolution." Let me more
clearly state this as follows: Many areas of observed operations science
have produced support for the unobserved part of biological evolution -
species evolving into other species. We have not observed a species
becoming another species, and this remains in the realm of imagination as
much today as it did in Darwin's day. In the conclusion on page 47, the
publication states "evolution has and will continue to serve as a critical
foundation of the biomedical and life sciences." Did you catch the flip
here? First, operations science supports biological evolution - then
biological evolution supports biomedical and other life sciences. This is
not good critical thinking.
Both biological evolution and scientific creationism begin with one main
assumption: no creator, creator. Both attempt to fit observable evidence
into these two world views. Both state that the evidence overwhelmingly
proves their presupposition. Creationist ploys are designed to insert an
alternative into public school science curriculums to counter what could be
considered state-sponsored atheism with its moral implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_opinion/2008/06/scott_nelson_separate_religion.html
J. Spaceman
.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bodega
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: Re: Commentary: Separate religion, science by taking atheist |
|
|
On Jun 13, 2:39 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
| Quote: |
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
BY SCOTT NELSON
On May 27, The Ann Arbor News published an editorial by the Washington Post
titled, "Teaching creationism: another ploy." That opinion equates three
things: "the existence of gravity," two plus two equals four,
and "evolutionary biology." This illustrates a confusion in the definition
of science. As long as the definition of science remains confused, and that
confusion is upheld in the public schools, "ploys" will continue. We can
categorize gravity and basic math as operations science. Part
of "evolutionary biology" is also operations science. It is the part that
observes variations within species. It is the part that Darwin observed and
we observe today.
Every example of "evolution" cited in the 2008 National Academy of Sciences
publication "Science, Evolution and Creationism" is simply within-species
variations. A chapter two headline in that publication states, "Many areas
of science have produced support for biological evolution." Let me more
clearly state this as follows: Many areas of observed operations science
have produced support for the unobserved part of biological evolution -
species evolving into other species. We have not observed a species
becoming another species, and this remains in the realm of imagination as
much today as it did in Darwin's day. In the conclusion on page 47, the
publication states "evolution has and will continue to serve as a critical
foundation of the biomedical and life sciences." Did you catch the flip
here? First, operations science supports biological evolution - then
biological evolution supports biomedical and other life sciences. This is
not good critical thinking.
Both biological evolution and scientific creationism begin with one main
assumption: no creator, creator. Both attempt to fit observable evidence
into these two world views. Both state that the evidence overwhelmingly
proves their presupposition. Creationist ploys are designed to insert an
alternative into public school science curriculums to counter what could be
considered state-sponsored atheism with its moral implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it athttp://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_opinion/2008/06/scott_nelson_separ...
J. Spaceman
.
|
Authoritative citations -- Ben Stein and a letter to the Ann Arbor
News. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Zaius
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: Re: Commentary: Separate religion, science by taking atheist |
|
|
On Jun 13, 4:39 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
| Quote: |
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
BY SCOTT NELSON
On May 27, The Ann Arbor News published an editorial by the Washington Post
titled, "Teaching creationism: another ploy." That opinion equates three
things: "the existence of gravity," two plus two equals four,
and "evolutionary biology." This illustrates a confusion in the definition
of science. As long as the definition of science remains confused, and that
confusion is upheld in the public schools, "ploys" will continue. We can
categorize gravity and basic math as operations science. Part
of "evolutionary biology" is also operations science. It is the part that
observes variations within species. It is the part that Darwin observed and
we observe today.
Every example of "evolution" cited in the 2008 National Academy of Sciences
publication "Science, Evolution and Creationism" is simply within-species
variations. A chapter two headline in that publication states, "Many areas
of science have produced support for biological evolution." Let me more
clearly state this as follows: Many areas of observed operations science
have produced support for the unobserved part of biological evolution -
species evolving into other species. We have not observed a species
becoming another species, and this remains in the realm of imagination as
much today as it did in Darwin's day. In the conclusion on page 47, the
publication states "evolution has and will continue to serve as a critical
foundation of the biomedical and life sciences." Did you catch the flip
here? First, operations science supports biological evolution - then
biological evolution supports biomedical and other life sciences. This is
not good critical thinking.
Both biological evolution and scientific creationism begin with one main
assumption: no creator, creator. Both attempt to fit observable evidence
into these two world views. Both state that the evidence overwhelmingly
proves their presupposition. Creationist ploys are designed to insert an
alternative into public school science curriculums to counter what could be
considered state-sponsored atheism with its moral implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it athttp://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_opinion/2008/06/scott_nelson_separ...
J. Spaceman
.
|
Well, I guess taking science out of the schools is one way to separate
religion and science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
