Political Discussion: Dover School Board - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Political Discussion: Dover School Board

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Coppermine » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:15 pm

Image
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby WharfRat » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:32 pm

RugbyD wrote:wow. just when you thought it couldn't get more conflicting :-° :

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV0FEO0.html

Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
Nov 18 11:55 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

By NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press Writer


VATICAN CITY


The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" _ whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism _ a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation _ camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."


Whoo-hoo! Sounds like there are plenty of doubting Thomases in the Vatican, but if the previous Pope and the Vatican astronomer can learn to rectify science and faith without trashing science, it gives me some hope. Now if we can get the American denominations on board...If my devout Catholic father can believe in science, why can't others? :-°

Nice post, Coppermine. :-D
1 3 4 6 7 8 8 9 10 15 16 23 32 37 42 44 49 51

8.14.07: "I guess heaven needed a shortstop."
WharfRat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3056
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Walking my fish

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:54 pm

A fundamental principle of science is falsifiability..that is, that scientists always accept the possibility that data may prove their theory wrong.

So, ask any one who favors teaching intelligent design the following question: "Is there any evidence that could be shown to you that would get you to admit that there was no intelligent design behind the creation of the universe?"

If the answer to that is "no"...

IT AIN"T SCIENCE.
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Postby PlayingWithFire » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:04 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:A fundamental principle of science is falsifiability..that is, that scientists always accept the possibility that data may prove their theory wrong.

So, ask any one who favors teaching intelligent design the following question: "Is there any evidence that could be shown to you that would get you to admit that there was no intelligent design behind the creation of the universe?"

If the answer to that is "no"...

IT AIN"T SCIENCE.


bingo, science can be tested, ID cannot. I can't believe I missed this thread as Kansas is one of the hotbed of Christian Fundamentalism.
Are you interested in joining a 28 teams dynasty league? If so, PM me.
PlayingWithFire
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13262
Joined: 7 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Manhattan, KS

Postby Coppermine » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:45 pm

PlayingWithFire wrote:
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:A fundamental principle of science is falsifiability..that is, that scientists always accept the possibility that data may prove their theory wrong.

So, ask any one who favors teaching intelligent design the following question: "Is there any evidence that could be shown to you that would get you to admit that there was no intelligent design behind the creation of the universe?"

If the answer to that is "no"...

IT AIN"T SCIENCE.


bingo, science can be tested, ID cannot. I can't believe I missed this thread as Kansas is one of the hotbed of Christian Fundamentalism.


Rock on guys! Exactly! Once someone accepts something to be true without condition it is a belief... which is the essence of "faith" and is certainly not science.

Well said Fire and Agnes ;-D
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby PlayingWithFire » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:49 pm

Coppermine wrote:
PlayingWithFire wrote:
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:A fundamental principle of science is falsifiability..that is, that scientists always accept the possibility that data may prove their theory wrong.

So, ask any one who favors teaching intelligent design the following question: "Is there any evidence that could be shown to you that would get you to admit that there was no intelligent design behind the creation of the universe?"

If the answer to that is "no"...

IT AIN"T SCIENCE.


bingo, science can be tested, ID cannot. I can't believe I missed this thread as Kansas is one of the hotbed of Christian Fundamentalism.


Rock on guys! Exactly! Once someone accepts something to be true without condition it is a belief... which is the essence of "faith" and is certainly not science.

Well said Fire and Agnes ;-D


I do, however, support it if it's tought in social study/religion class(which I don't take anyway) :-D
Are you interested in joining a 28 teams dynasty league? If so, PM me.
PlayingWithFire
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13262
Joined: 7 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Manhattan, KS

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:56 am

You guys really keep missing my argument altogether.

I am not contending ID is science. I am contending that the Big Bang theory as an explanation for the point of origin of the universe isnt science either. If Big Bang is taught as an explanation for the universe's creation, then so too should ID and FSM.

Is there any evidence that could be shown to you that would get you to admit that there was no Big Bang behind the creation of the universe?

Again - just so there's no confuion this time, here's a timeline:

Point of Origin of the Universe
^
The science of the Big Bang theory
^
creation of earth
^
evolution

All I am saying is someone in our schools needs to stand up and say that no one knows how the point of origin happened. As of right now, this distinction is not being made.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:14 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:You guys really keep missing my argument altogether.

I am not contending ID is science. I am contending that the Big Bang theory as an explanation for the point of origin of the universe isnt science either. If Big Bang is taught as an explanation for the universe's creation, then so too should ID and FSM.

Is there any evidence that could be shown to you that would get you to admit that there was no Big Bang behind the creation of the universe?

Again - just so there's no confuion this time, here's a timeline:

Point of Origin of the Universe
^
The science of the Big Bang theory
^
creation of earth
^
evolution

All I am saying is someone in our schools needs to stand up and say that no one knows how the point of origin happened. As of right now, this distinction is not being made.


Not to be disrespectful, Cornbread, but we are missing your argument because it makes no sense. You've argued that the Big Bang should not be taught as an explanation of "how life began" but only as an explanation for "what happened after life began".

But, no one uses the Big Bang as an explanation for how life began. The Big Bang is simply an explanation of the motion (and other features) of the universe we observe.

And, yes, if optical, microwave, and other studies showed evidence that contradicted the Big Bang, I'd certainly reject it. There have been rival theories, including the "steady state" theory and the "grand Universe" theory. So far, the evidence is more supportive of a Big Bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 82511.html
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:But, no one uses the Big Bang as an explanation for how life began. The Big Bang is simply an explanation of the motion (and other features) of the universe we observe.



See - I guess thats the point of contention then, since I seriously doubt this is the case. I was taught the Big Bang theory explained how the universe was created - I would make the assumption that hundreds of thousands of my peers would say the same.

Maybe the way it is taught nowadays is different, but I would bet money that children are still given the impression that the Big Bang theory explains how the universe began.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:38 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:See - I guess thats the point of contention then, since I seriously doubt this is the case. I was taught the Big Bang theory explained how the universe was created - I would make the assumption that hundreds of thousands of my peers would say the same.

Maybe the way it is taught nowadays is different, but I would bet money that children are still given the impression that the Big Bang theory explains how the universe began.


1. How the universe began is not the same as how life was created.

2. How the universe began is NOT the same as how the universe was "created".

3. The Big Bang certainly is an explanation of how what we see around us (that is, the universe and its motion, features, etc.) began.

4. Nearly all scientists who feel that the evidence supports the Big Bang agree that no one really knows what happened before the Big Bang. As the wiki article notes: "There is no compelling physical model for the first 10^(-33) seconds of the universe"

I think it's very possible that a combination of students' sloppy hearing and teachers' sloppy explanations results in the situation that you describe--that many believe the Big Bang is an explanation for the "creation" of the "universe".

"Creation" almost always implies that someone was involved in the act of creating. Science has nothing to say about the "creation" of the "universe", but does tell us a lot about the beginning of the "universe", most of which is consistent with the Big Bang. If students and teachers were careful in not equating creation with beginning, we'd see less disagreement.

"Universe", to scientists, simply means the currently observable world. As the wiki states, science has "no compelling physical model" of initial time or what came before that. If students and teachers were careful in understanding that the Big Bang as explanation of the beginning of the current universe is not inconsistent with many theories or beliefs about what happened before that, we'd see less disagreement, too.
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Sep. 2
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Cincinnati at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Detroit at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Boston at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
NY Mets at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Toronto at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Milwaukee at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Texas at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
LA Angels at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
San Francisco at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Seattle at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Washington at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Arizona at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact