was@pbhye.UUCP (Joe Wasik) (07/08/87)
After years of seeing their religious beliefs degraded to mere supernatural anomalies, the religious right came upon an idea: if we cannot have our beliefs accepted as fact, then perhaps the definition of fact (i.e. scientific evidence) needs to be altered. Consider, evolution is rejected in favor of creationism by denying the validity of carbon dating, fossil evidence, genetic tracing in favor of explanations such as the Great Flood. School prayer is promoted by relabeling traditional science as the religion of secular humanism. These semi-organized attempts to promote one particular religious belief are so ubiquitous, that even a newsgroup such as this falls prey. There are two different spheres of reality and neither side has the slightest chance of even influencing the other. The battle of fact versus faith only wastes time. Those who see science as reality have no scheme in place to prevent science from being polluted or even to launch a decent counter-attack. The only viable alternative is to deny the religious right its credibility. To do that is easy, simply ignore those postings in this newsgroup that are so obviously matters of faith.
dam@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Dave Montuori) (07/10/87)
In article <1787@pbhye.UUCP> was@pbhye.UUCP (Joe Wasik) writes: > the religious right came upon an idea: >if we cannot have our beliefs accepted as fact, then perhaps >the definition of fact (i.e. scientific evidence) needs to be altered. > >Consider, evolution is rejected in favor of creationism by denying >the validity of carbon dating, fossil evidence, genetic tracing >in favor of explanations such as the Great Flood. This is the first time I've ever heard the Great Flood used as support for creationism. Furthermore, the Flood isn't too far from being a fact proven by honest scientific means. Nevertheless, the fundie point of view is erroneous and doesn't merit being called "scientific." > School prayer is >promoted by relabeling traditional science as the religion of secular >humanism. Can you provide a logical connection between these? I am against the involuntary lack of prayer in public schools, but I don't think that has anything to do with how science is taught. Incidentally - correct me with references if I'm wrong - I think the Supreme Court defined secular humanism to be a religion in 1961. I went to a Catholic school. There we were taught both evolution and creationism, with the evidence for both sides presented. It was obvious to our class that creationism as the fundies preach it is a crock of s**t. God said Let There Be Physics, Let There Be Evolution, and the rest is left to the reader as an exercise. Now let's get this out of sci.research and back in talk.* where it belongs.... -- From the University of Virginia at Boar's Head, C.S. Department-in-Exile: Dave Montuori (Dr. ZRFQ); DAMONT quandum, DAMONTque futurus. dam@cs.virginia.edu == dam1m@virginia.BITNET == seismo!virginia!uvacs!dam "A blessing for the Tsar? May God bless and keep the Tsar... far away from us!"
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (07/13/87)
In article <1746@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> dam@uvacs.UUCP (Dave Montuori) writes: >This is the first time I've ever heard the Great Flood used as support >for creationism. Furthermore, the Flood isn't too far from being >a fact proven by honest scientific means. ... I don't think there is any evidence for a universal flood that is taken at all seriously by geologists. The "Noachian Deluge" (as they tend to call it) is part of the dogma of most Creationist organizations, and members are often required to affirm their belief in it as a condition of joining. Hence the Flood is a part of Creationism rather than merely support for it. >... I am against the >involuntary lack of prayer in public schools ... There is plenty of prayer in public schools - go by any time during exams! The courts and the Constitution have prohibited only government-run prayer in schools - that is, prayer at a time or in a manner established by the school or the teacher (which are arms of the government). No matter what one's religion, having the government mucking about in it should be cause for alarm. >... I think the Supreme Court defined >secular humanism to be a religion in 1961. In one decision the Court noted that a religion need not necessarily include a belief in a deity, and in a footnote listed a series of examples, including some Eastern religions and "secular humanism." According to the attorney who actually wrote the decision, this "secular humanism" was a reference to a tiny church in California, not the American Humanist Association or any similar group. Further, since no evidence was heard either way, it was not a formal finding of the Court but just a passing reference - an "obiter dictum" to lawyers. Although secular humanists believe in science, it is a wild leap to suggest that teaching science implies teaching humanism. Plenty of non-humanists favor science teaching. But anything beyond a surface look at the Creationism movement reveals it to be made up of Christian fundamentalists who start with a dogmatic belief in Creation and then go hunting for anything that supports their a priori belief and dismiss anything that does not out of hand. It has no place in a science class. >Now let's get this out of sci.research and back in talk.* where it >belongs.... Right you are! -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet