| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Aug 2005 03:21:40 PM |
| Object: |
O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he
believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and
the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.
Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed
through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution,
put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms
developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 04:39:29 PM |
|
|
On 5 Aug 2005 13:21:40 -0700 in alt.atheism,
jspaceman@linuxquestions.net (jspaceman@linuxquestions.net) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he
believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and
the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.
Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed
through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution,
put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms
developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.
Whatever your belief, it should be respected.
I've often wondered about that. It's a common aphorism, but if a
belief if crap, and can be shown to be crap, on what basis should it
be "respected" and what do we mean by "respect" in cases like this
anyway?
But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
06 Aug 2005 02:50:36 AM |
|
|
In article <06n7f1hngj1j1cqs1970j9ogkhpvqmblpb@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 13:21:40 -0700 in alt.atheism,
jspaceman@linuxquestions.net (jspaceman@linuxquestions.net) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he
believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and
the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.
Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed
through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution,
put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms
developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.
Whatever your belief, it should be respected.
I've often wondered about that. It's a common aphorism, but if a
belief if crap, and can be shown to be crap, on what basis should it
be "respected" and what do we mean by "respect" in cases like this
anyway?
The problem is that 'Intelligent Design' is that it's not science. It's
proponents never offer observable, objective data to back their claim.
They have yet to report their experimental findings in a peer reviewed
scientific journal because they haven't done any experiments.
To repeat, Intelligent Design is not science. It is a best dubious
philosophy and at worst thinly disguised theology. Either way, it has no
place in a science class,
But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html
J. Spaceman
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shytot" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
06 Aug 2005 01:40:03 PM |
|
|
<jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:1123273300.447984.307670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he
believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and
the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.
Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed
through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution,
put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms
developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html
J. Spaceman
Thye could but it wouldn't be in a Science class - maybe modern studies or
some such rubbish.
Shytot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 05:06:04 PM |
|
|
<jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:1123273300.447984.307670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he
believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and
the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.
Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed
through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution,
put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms
developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html
Why is it that the fascists are the first to accuse others of being
fascists?
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"Sometimes I hate myself. Sometimes I love myself"
- Unknown (to me)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 04:03:58 PM |
|
|
<jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:1123273300.447984.307670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Fools like this label all ideas but their own as fascism. If a couple of
people believe this, then it ought to be taught in schools, along with the
millions of other beliefs that he thinks should be respected to the point
that they are taught in school.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Hemidactylus*" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 07:23:53 PM |
|
|
Fred wrote:
<jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:1123273300.447984.307670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Fools like this label all ideas but their own as fascism. If a couple of
people believe this, then it ought to be taught in schools, along with the
millions of other beliefs that he thinks should be respected to the point
that they are taught in school.
I could see a good point being made that at some time during a lecture
on evolution, whether in a general biology class or a course on
evolution itself, the subject matter could touch on the history of
biological thought previous to Darwin. Mention could be made of Paley
and the watchmaker analogy (though it might be good to add Hume's
counterpoints for good measure). Then it wouldn't be inappropriate for
a text or techer to say that there is a contemporary version of Paley's
views called "intelligent design" that is at the forefront in the
social controversies over metaphysical views on origins. It could be
mentioned that for the most part this ID belief system has leanings
towards a Christian God playing the role as designer (maybe directed
panspermy could be added for the X-Files fans). Then to end the
discussion on non-scientific or religiously based beliefs about origins
mention couldd be made about how cultures far removed from the
Judeochristian belief system have had their own myths about origins and
the place of humans in nature, ranging from the Hindus to the Norse to
the Greeks to Africans to Native Americans and so on. This variation in
metaphysical beliefs is itself a product of evolution. That would be
about all that's needed to teach students about ID or about "the
controversy". Then the class could go on to learn the fundamentals of
evolutionary biology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 09:41:38 PM |
|
|
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123287833.315233.140550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fools like this label all ideas but their own as fascism. If a couple of
people believe this, then it ought to be taught in schools, along with
the
millions of other beliefs that he thinks should be respected to the
point
that they are taught in school.
I could see a good point being made that at some time during a lecture
on evolution, whether in a general biology class or a course on
evolution itself, the subject matter could touch on the history of
biological thought previous to Darwin. Mention could be made of Paley
and the watchmaker analogy (though it might be good to add Hume's
counterpoints for good measure). Then it wouldn't be inappropriate for
a text or techer to say that there is a contemporary version of Paley's
views called "intelligent design" that is at the forefront in the
social controversies over metaphysical views on origins. It could be
mentioned that for the most part this ID belief system has leanings
towards a Christian God playing the role as designer (maybe directed
panspermy could be added for the X-Files fans). Then to end the
discussion on non-scientific or religiously based beliefs about origins
mention couldd be made about how cultures far removed from the
Judeochristian belief system have had their own myths about origins and
the place of humans in nature, ranging from the Hindus to the Norse to
the Greeks to Africans to Native Americans and so on. This variation in
metaphysical beliefs is itself a product of evolution. That would be
about all that's needed to teach students about ID or about "the
controversy". Then the class could go on to learn the fundamentals of
evolutionary biology.
I agree with you. I think that this is an excellent approach. I believe that
discussing the history of modern thought is extremely useful, and in that
context ID plays a role. Unfortunately, however, in my limited experience I
believe that most teachers would present this discussion in such a poor
manner that it is better not to allow it at all. Bush may be extremely
deficient in intelligence, but he is far from alone in thinking that it is
easier to teach god than to teach critical thinking.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 08:05:49 PM |
|
|
Only those theories that are supported by substantial objective verifiable
evidence
should be taught in school. Intelligent design is a religious belief system
that has no
objective verifiable evidence to support it. Its pure subjective opinion -
NOT science.
"Fred" <hello@there.com> wrote in message
news:RKCdnQWWfvndSW7fRVn-tg@comcast.com...
<jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:1123273300.447984.307670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Fools like this label all ideas but their own as fascism. If a couple of
people believe this, then it ought to be taught in schools, along with the
millions of other beliefs that he thinks should be respected to the point
that they are taught in school.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shytot" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
06 Aug 2005 01:41:06 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:W%TIe.6410$%X1.4253@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Only those theories that are supported by substantial objective verifiable
evidence
should be taught in school. Intelligent design is a religious belief
system
that has no
objective verifiable evidence to support it. Its pure subjective opinion -
NOT science.
I don't agree, in Science classes only teach science but in relgious studies
teach all the other crap.
Shytot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 09:42:08 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:W%TIe.6410$%X1.4253@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Only those theories that are supported by substantial objective verifiable
evidence
should be taught in school. Intelligent design is a religious belief
system
that has no
objective verifiable evidence to support it. Its pure subjective opinion -
NOT science.
You will get no argument from me on this point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 04:42:06 PM |
|
|
<jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:1123273300.447984.307670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he
believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and
the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.
Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed
through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution,
put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms
developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html
J. Spaceman
There are several problems. Intelligent Design is not science.It can never
be proved wrong, answers little and leads nowhere. Perhaps it could be
taught in Social studies class along with other strange belief systems. "Ok
class today we are going to learn about how a higher force created the world
and set it on the back of a turtle so it wouldn't fall.". Then the lesson "A
higher power made the heavens and the earth and created all the creatures.
Now, on to that turtle."
If you were completely honest you would have to admit that you want
creationism taught because that is what you believe and you want this belief
to be more respectable. You want intelligent design to be called science
because it is in science class. This is an intolerable situation. IT IS NOT
SCIENCE!!!. Should science class also include astrology, palm reading, ESP,
flying saucers and a hundred New Age concepts. We would really have country
full of nitwits, wouldn't we?
You seem to think there is only a divide between Christianity and
Science. There are hundreds of other nonscientific views out there. If all
were included then there wouldn't be much time left to talk about actual
science, would there?
Lets face it. Intelligent design is either just a clever way for
Christian creationist ideas to get into science class or a way to weaken
effective teaching of evolution. Intelligent Design is trying to disguise
itself as respectable science. The only method it knows, however, is to try
an find fault with evolution and never contributes anything of its own.
There has never been anything come along that shows Intelligent Design to be
right. Their arguments carry some weight with ignorant High School students
already biased towards religion but are laughable to knowledgeable
scientists.
There is also the very important (not to you) concept of the separation
of church and state. I see this as crucial. It is as important as the
concept of a person being innocent until proven guilty. You may not like it
sometimes (eg O.J. Simpson) but it protects us all. There is a problem in
Moslem countries where many want the leaders to also be religious leaders.
Not good at all, I'd say. President Bush wants this changed in Iraq yet he
wants intelligent design taught in schools. I wonder if he realizes how
hypocritical his ideas are.
You want the state to do the business of religion. Would pastors teach
in a sincere manner about the Big Bang theory or evolution. Of course not.
Why do you ask for a secular organization to do your bidding?
It is difficult enough for teachers in ultra religious areas to teach
evolution. They are criticized and derided. If creationism became part of
the curriculum then they would be criticized even more for teaching
evolution in a favorable light. It would be argued that kids should be
allowed to answer tests using only creationist ideas. "We all know that
evolution stuff is nonsense, don't we, Mr. Smith? Or are you one of those
atheists"
Teachers who don't tow the line in such an environment wouldn't last
long in such an environment. Parents could always phone the principal with
all sorts of complaints that have nothing to do with the real issue. Can you
imagine an intelligent teacher enduring such stress for 30 years for a lousy
25000 a year?
I am certain the creationists have a 2 part agenda.
Step 1 - Get intelligent design taught in science class.
Step 2 - Make it illegal to give more time to evolution that intelligent
design.
Because it only takes 10 minutes to explain intelligent design, then the
teacher could only explain evolution for 10 minutes. This effectively
removes any meaningful learning of evolution from the science curriculum.
That is what its all about, isn't it?
Jeff - retired teacher
.
|
|
|
| User: "ToniG" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 07:26:49 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Thomas" <jjthomas@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:O2RIe.122754$%K2.39703@pd7tw1no...
Fine analysis, if I may say so!
One small re-formulation does suggest itself, though:
If you were completely honest you would have to admit that you want
creationism taught because that is what you believe and you want this
belief to be more respectable. You want intelligent design to be called
science
**because you live in a world in which 'science' has status and power;
influences policy; and is automatically accepted as 'the truth' by millions
of people**...
Toni.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
06 Aug 2005 02:24:25 PM |
|
|
"ToniG" <ToniGray@fhsyystebu.com> writes:
**because you live in a world in which 'science' has status and power;
influences policy; and is automatically accepted as 'the truth' by millions
of people**...
You have to admit, with good reason...
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
06 Aug 2005 12:12:47 AM |
|
|
I think you are only going to see this problem in Kansas and the rest
of the Bible belt.
Not everyone is an Evangelical dimwit and thank God they are not.
As far as I know, not too many Catholics are involved in this
foolishness.
It's almost like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a
pin.
Science is after all just using our brains to ask questions of the
material universe that we
happen to inhabit.
Christianity really has no problem with Science, now if you mix up
Christianity then of course you will have problems and that is exactly
what is happening.
If I believe that God created both the heavens and the Earth and is
still creating, I think that he could use evolution as a tool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
13 Aug 2005 07:30:56 AM |
|
|
Let the facts show that on 8/6/05 1:12 AM, at
wrote:
I think you are only going to see this problem in Kansas and the rest
of the Bible belt.
Not everyone is an Evangelical dimwit and thank God they are not.
As far as I know, not too many Catholics are involved in this
foolishness.
Not at all. My wife is a lapsed RC born and raised in the US (I'm a Church
of England-raised believer in the powr of persuasion) and she minored in
theology at a Jesuit University. They are very thorough in debunking the
modus operendi of the Church, even citing how the Old Testament is just a
word-for-word naysay of Egyptian beliefs at the time (says my wife). And, of
course, one Pope (don't know which one, I dare say it's online somewhere)
said that evolution is compatible with Christian doctrine. In much the same
way that Stephen Jay Gould said that science and religion are two different
ways of seeing the world, the idea that science says "how and when did this
happen?" and religion says "why did this happen?" aren't in and of
themselves incompatible. I believe the Pope's explanation was something
like: just because you discover that something happened, it doesn't preclude
the possibility that someone set that process in motion in the first place.
God as the designer, instead of a god as a bully and spy. In much the same
way that a computer programmer doesn't choose all the colors in a Mandelbrot
picture, he just writes the code and sets it running.
It's almost like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a
pin.
Science is after all just using our brains to ask questions of the
material universe that we
happen to inhabit.
Specifically "how" and "when". Not "why" and "by whom".
Christianity really has no problem with Science, now if you mix up
Christianity then of course you will have problems and that is exactly
what is happening.
If I believe that God created both the heavens and the Earth and is
still creating, I think that he could use evolution as a tool.
Which Southern Baptists (and certain Roman Catholics that share their
mindset for political gain and book sales, like Rick Santorum for example)
adhere to with a dogmatic passion verging on the insane. My father is still
in England (I'm Stateside), he's still religious and he still has a wonder
and a passion for science. It's thanks to him that I have the love for logic
and method that I have today.
I guess it's just a middle America thing. Then again, these were the people
that swore blind they were abducted by aliens in the seventies, and that
Elvis was working at their Wal-Mart in the eighties. Isolation must do
strange things to the synapses.
?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø
Shawn Orlando Seabrook. http://shawngbr.home.att.net/
This signature set seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone
does it we can defeat the email search bots.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." (Isaac Asimov.)
?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mateo" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
08 Aug 2005 04:57:43 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1123273300.447984.307670
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Mostly the lack of evidence that it involved a "higher power". I would
guess convincing experts in a field would be necessary before attempting to
convince children, but what do I know.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 08:08:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
(Quoting Bill "shut up!" O'Reilly:
That, in my opinion, is fascism.
That being said, I'm sure that Big Bill (1)
will get around to defending faith-based
alternatives to the Theory of Gravity,
the General and Special Theories of Relativity
and other scientific theories in his efforts
to combat "fascism", right?
[(1) This nickname is quite appropriate;
one of Chicago's most corrupt and flaky
mayors, "Big Bill" Thompson, was full of
all sorts of nutty ideas as well when he
wasn't busy protecting Al Capone's business
interests. Feel free to read about *him* at
http://www.graveyards.com/oakwoods/thompson.html
if you want a cheap laugh.]
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 04:14:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
(snip)
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism.
Wow! You mean I have been mistaken about the definition of fascism for
35+ years??? So mentioning intelligent design, along with a critical
analysis of why it is not science, in a class other than science
constitutes fascism!? How about not mentioning Algebra in History
class? Fascism too? Or is that Communism?
There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Nearly half, not "some," scientists believe the creation of the world
(and life) involved a higher power. But virtually no scientists find
any value in the pseudoscience of ID. Why don't ID propagandists want
students to know that?
(snip)
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 05:27:12 PM |
|
|
Frank J wrote:
jspaceman@linuxquestions.net wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
(snip)
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism.
Wow! You mean I have been mistaken about the definition of fascism for
35+ years??? So mentioning intelligent design, along with a critical
analysis of why it is not science, in a class other than science
constitutes fascism!? How about not mentioning Algebra in History
class? Fascism too? Or is that Communism?
Ol' Billy-Bob O'Reilly loves to distort language for his own purposes.
Another fine example is when he calls the people and organizations who
are trying to get access the rest of the Iraqi prison abuse photos
"terrorist allies," because the pictures will ***** some people off and
lead indirectly to someone being inspired to do something they were
going to do anyway.
655321 (GlennGlenn)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
05 Aug 2005 03:37:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he
believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and
the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.
Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed
through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution,
put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms
developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
-------------------------------------
Right! And, let's teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because
some people believe that as well. And, let's teach about alien
abductions, because some believe in that. Not to mention astrology,
devil worship, flat earth, etc. Hell, if you look, you'll find people
who believe in each of those. Obviously, not to teach their beliefs is
fascism as well.
(The above is sarcasm, for the sarcasm impaired)
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
08 Aug 2005 04:04:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
I hope the ID Silly People tell O'Reilly that God is not involved with
ID.
Perhaps he can have a Creationist Silly and an ID Silly debate the
issue on his show. Now that's entertainment!
JohnN
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
08 Aug 2005 05:22:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
<...>
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Go ahead and mention ID in the same discussion with other pseudoscience
silliness like UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda
Triangle, etc., so they can show it for what it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
08 Aug 2005 11:50:30 AM |
|
|
On 8 Aug 2005 03:22:25 -0700, "VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
jspaceman@linuxquestions.net wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
<...>
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Go ahead and mention ID in the same discussion with other pseudoscience
silliness like UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda
Triangle, etc., so they can show it for what it really is.
Indeed. Perhaps someone should inform Mr. O'Reilly that the reason scientists
don't want ID taught in science classes is because it isn't science. In
fact....I believe I will. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
13 Aug 2005 07:49:21 AM |
|
|
Let the facts show that on 8/8/05 12:50 PM, John Baker at
wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 03:22:25 -0700, "VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
jspaceman@linuxquestions.net wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
<...>
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Go ahead and mention ID in the same discussion with other pseudoscience
silliness like UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda
Triangle, etc., so they can show it for what it really is.
Indeed. Perhaps someone should inform Mr. O'Reilly that the reason scientists
don't want ID taught in science classes is because it isn't science. In
fact....I believe I will. <G>
If it helps, send this around to people!!! :)
----------------------
Here's a good indication of how a Creationist thinks. We're going to use
real science (drug testing) and see how a real Creationist (George W. Bush)
reacts to a fact concerning it, and use that as a baseline to see how
'scientific' is his reasoning.
I'm using
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/08/03/palmeiro.congress.a
p/ as a source, and other sources validate this.
On March 17th 2005, Palmeiro appeared before Davis' panel alongside Mark
McGwire and Sammy Sosa, pointed his finger for emphasis and declared: "I
have never used steroids. Period."
On August 1st, 2005, it was revealed that Palmeiro =had= ever used steriods.
Period. A person with knowledge of the sport's drug-testing program told the
AP on condition of anonymity that Palmeiro tested positive for the powerful
steroid stanozolol.
That's what sprinter Ben Johnson tested positive for when he was stripped of
his gold medal and world record in the 100 meters at the 1988 Olympics. It
is not available in over-the-counter supplements and is known as a powerful
strength-builder. It can be ingested in tablet form, leaving one's system in
less than a month, or injected, lasting several weeks longer.
So we have a scientific fact. As scientific as evolution and geology.
Palmeiro claimed he had never used steriods and weeks later was irrefutably
tested positive for a highly reactive steroid. He lied, and pure science
found him out. Science proved, totally 100% proved, that Rafael Palmeiro HAD
USED STEROIDS, at least once, several weeks previously.
THE NEXT DAY, Tuesday, August 2nd in 2005, here's what President George
Walker Bush (a known Creationist), had to say in the face of OVERWHELMING
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE when a reporter said, using these exact words, "Rafael
Palmeiro got busted":
"Well, Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He¹s the kind of person that¹s going to
stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn¹t use steroids, and I
believe him. Still do."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080200
899_pf.html if you want to read the FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVENT.
The guy got busted. Using science. It was on the news all over on the 1st of
the month. And the Creationist way of thinking about it the very next day
was to use words to prove a circular pseudo-logic ('I think he's innocent, a
President can't be wrong, I'm a President so I must be right, so he's
innocent'). Just like Bush did here.
The kicker is this: in the SAME INTERVIEW SESSION, earlier up the same page,
the follwing question and answer was given:
------
Question: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate
over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on
that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor
-- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past.
(Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to
local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly
taught.
------
.....why should we even give both sides equal credence...? Because he says
so...?!?!? He doesn't even know how science works, he PROVED IT in his
answer concerning Palmeiro. We have the baseline (a standard to measure how
the Creationist that started this debate understands science) and we can
apply it rigorously. Creationism and it's pseudonyms don't meet the minimum
requirements to get on the Science Rollercoaster. We have George W Bush to
thank for clearing this up in one press conference.
The evidence is there. Scientific method wins out over lies and
superstitions.
Does the administration have any other ideas of what faith-based things
should happen because of opinion or the will of the few? Faith-based defense
contracts using God instead of spy satellites? Faith-based aircraft
manufacture using prayer to deliver us a Boeing '7E7' instead of welding
torches and computers? Faith-based surgery using the laying of hands instead
of drugs and sterilization?
In four hundred years time, men and women will be laughing at
Republican-Americans for their false beliefs and attempts at twisting logic
for their own beliefs. And Republican-Americans will be back-pedaling,
trying to say their ilk never thought such things. Just as the Roman
Catholic Church now back-pedals on its decisions over witches, Gallileo and
religious killing as the world laughs at their past foolishnesses. The
difference now, of course, is a lot more Republican-Americans put their
names on emails and Letters To The Editor in newspapers, giving future
mankind more to laugh at.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
13 Aug 2005 08:45:36 AM |
|
|
*In four hundred years time, men and women will be laughing at
*Republican-Americans for their false beliefs and attempts at twisting
logic
*for their own beliefs.
Actually, they will laught at the entire USA for electing these morons
TWICE...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
14 Aug 2005 10:21:41 AM |
|
|
Let the facts show that on 8/13/05 9:45 AM, Parsifal at
jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com wrote:
*In four hundred years time, men and women will be laughing at
*Republican-Americans for their false beliefs and attempts at twisting
logic
*for their own beliefs.
Actually, they will laught at the entire USA for electing these morons
TWICE...
.....and NeoCons now say "are you calling us stupid?" when we point out their
lack of intellect and aptitude.
Yes, I am. I, Shawn Seabrook, am willing to put my head above the parapet
and declare the vast majority of the Conservative's supporters stupid. And
gullible too. Sheep would be a good word to use for them.
If NeoCons believe, as they do, that Straussian philosophy is a good
indicator of people (that we are political creatures, so things should be
framed in a political context), and people are given the vote to improve
their lot in life, and yet these people that live in the porest areas of the
country get poorer (hell's bells, you can still buy a good house in Austin
or Dallas for less than $100k which means they have less wealth when they
sell the house and move into a retirement home) as the mega-rich get
stupidly richer at their expense...
.....then, yes. They're idiots. They even need to be told to demonstrate
against an Iraq-war veteran's mother on a radio show. Sheeple one and all.
?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø
Shawn Orlando Seabrook. http://shawngbr.home.att.net/
This signature set seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone
does it we can defeat the email search bots.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." (Isaac Asimov.)
?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
14 Aug 2005 11:58:53 PM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2005 06:45:36 -0700,
Parsifal <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote:
*In four hundred years time, men and women will be laughing at
*Republican-Americans for their false beliefs and attempts at twisting
logic
*for their own beliefs.
Actually, they will laught at the entire USA for electing these morons
TWICE...
By the way it's looking, in four hundred years, the United States will have
taken its seat beside the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire and the
British Empire in the vaguely-remembered dustbin of history.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
20 Aug 2005 05:23:42 PM |
|
|
O'Reilly put it "God vs. Science" and Science wins, hands down!
Somebody needs to beat Tony Snow over the head with some real Science,
too.
How many more of these right wing lies do we have to put up with?
www.mediamatters.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
06 Aug 2005 01:33:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Whatever your belief, it should be respected.
When has O'Reilly ever respected anyone else's beliefs? Even
right after saying this, he goes on to call others' beliefs
"fascism":
But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism.
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html
Learn more about O'Reilly and his ilk:
http://www.newshounds.us/
http://mediamatters.org/
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Lepore" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
08 Aug 2005 01:34:03 AM |
|
|
Bill O'Reilly said, "There is no reason the students cannot be told
that more than a few people, including some scientists, believe the
creation of the world, no matter how it occurred, involved a higher
power. What on earth is wrong with that?"
He's right, but that belongs in geography class. It in geography class
where students learn which countries have which percentages of which
religions.
The god hypothesis, inherently untestable, doesn't belong in
a science class.
--
Mike Lepore
email delete the 5
http://www.crimsonbird.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
06 Aug 2005 11:39:04 PM |
|
|
On 5 Aug 2005 13:21:40 -0700, wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking
Points Memo".
While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he
believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and
the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.
Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed
through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution,
put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms
developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.
Whatever your belief, it should be respected.
It is the belief of scientist that before something can be taught
as science, it should at the very least, meet a minimum number of
basic scientific principles. Phrenology, astrology, alchemy and
creationism do not meet these standards and therefore should not be
taught as science. I hope O'reilly can follow his own rule, and
respect the beliefs of scientists, at least where science is
concerned. As far as scientists following this rule, it is not their
rule, because the rule is absurd.
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Reilly: God vs. Science |
06 Aug 2005 10:28:35 AM |
|
|
On 5 Aug 2005 13:21:40 -0700, wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science
classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the
students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some
scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it
occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?
Some people, including some scientists, believe that life on Earth was
started by aliens from another planet. Should we tell them that too?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
