|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5161 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ok. Why not. Let's teach ID in Science class! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
rogerw1 Inactive Member |
I am going to Sacramento State. The first edition published in 98. Mine is the 4th edition 2004
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rogerw1 Inactive Member |
I think you replied to the wrong person . this has nothing to do with any of my posts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rogerw1 Inactive Member |
I just sold my book on amazon. I will go though my papers and give you some quotes as soon I can . I havent had much free time as of late .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I am turning 38 this year, and I went to High School here. I'd also like to say that this was not a particularly rich school district, nor was it in a very sophisticated town or county (not at all). The level of higher education among the general populace was not that high; there's still quite a lot of blue-collar work in that area. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-30-2005 08:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Actually, your reply to me (which I then replied to) is message #46 in this thread. If you look at the bottom of the message window for a given post, you will see a listing of all of the message numbers of the replies, along with the authors' names. You can click on the message numbers to go to those individual replies. In this way it is possible to follow an exchange back to where it began within a thread. I think that you may have thought you were replying to someone else when you initially replied to me. One way to avoid this confusion is to quote at least part of the message you are responding to in the body of your reply. To see how to use the quote boxes, use the "peek mode", which you will find in the lower right corner of the message boxes. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-30-2005 08:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Schafinator,
I am turning 38 this year Happy birthday for tomorrow, in that case . Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rogerw1 Inactive Member |
The claim that creationism is a science rests above all on the plausibility of the biblical flood
by Stephen Jay Gould G.K.CHESTERTON once mused over Noah's dinnertime conversations during those long nights on a vast and tempestuous sea: And Noah he often said to his wifewhen he sat down to dine, "I don't care where the water goes if it doesn't get into the wine." Noah's insouciance has not been matched by defenders of his famous flood. For centuries, fundamentalists have tried very hard to find a place for the subsiding torrents. They have struggled even more valiantly to devise a source for all that water. Our modern oceans, extensive as they are, will not override Mt. Everest. One seventeenth-century searcher said: "I can as soon believe that a man would be drowned in his own spittle as that the world should be deluged by the water in it."With the advent of creationism, a solution to this old dilemma has been put forward. In The Genesis Flood (1961), the founding document of the creationist movement, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris seek guidance from Genesis 1:6-7, which states that God created the firmament and then slid it into place amidst the waters, thus dividing "the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so." The waters under the firmament include seas and interior fluid that may rise in volcanic eruptions. But what are the waters above the firmament? Whitcomb and Morris reason that Moses cannot refer here to transient rain clouds, because he also tells us (Genesis 2:5) that "the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth." The authors therefore imagine that the earth, in those palmy days, was surrounded by a gigantic canopy of water vapor (which, being invisible, did not obscure the light of Genesis 1:3). "These upper waters," Whitcomb and Morris write, "were therefore placed in that position by divine creativity, not by the normal processes of the hydrological cycle of the present day." Upwelling from the depths together with the liquefaction, puncturing, and descent of the celestial canopy produced more than enough water for Noah's worldwide flood. Fanciful solutions often generate a cascade of additional difficulties. In this case, Morris, a hydraulic engineer by training, and Whitcomb invoke a divine assist to gather the waters into their canopy, but then can't find a natural way to get them down. So they invoke a miracle: God put the water there in the first place; let him then release it. The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any kind of a Genesis Flood without acknowledging the presence of supernatural elements....It is obvious that the opening of the "windows of heaven" in order to allow "the waters which were above the firmament" to fall upon the earth, and the breaking up of "all the fountains of the great deep" were supernatural acts of God. Since we usually define science, at least in part, as a system of explanation that relies upon invariant natural laws, this charmingly direct invocation of miracles (suspensions of natural law) would seem to negate the central claims of the modern creationist movement --by Stephen Jay Gould Science as a way of Knowing "A fundamental difference between religious and scientific thought is that the received beliefs in religion are ultimately based on revelation or pronouncements, usually by some long-dead prophet or priest. These revelations or pronouncements become the dogma of faith. . In contrast, the statements of science are derived ultimately from the data and experiment, and from the manipulation of these data according to logical and often mathematical procedures." by john a. moore I will post more later
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Ah, you got me!
My birthday is in March.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Well, I grew up in Conn. and let me tell you my impression of Central - it's the school kids go to when they can't get into UConn.
I only know 1 kid who went to Central. A friend of mine, but not exactly an academic athlete. And this profs been teaching there for 35 years? Yikes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
From the other posts I've seen in the thread it sounds like this book was a collection of Essays about Evolution, some directly compairing the plausibility of Evolution and Creationism.
I'm not surprised that at this Gould article, in the war against religious extremeism, Gould is (was) our Patton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Um, rogerw1? What essay was that from? It certainly wasn't from "Evolution as Fact and Theory." And looking at the titles of the other articles that were in your book, I'm not sure how the passage you quoted is relevant to those topics. From what I can tell, it is from an article Gould wrote for Atlantic Monthly titled "Genesis vs. Geology." That article does not appear in your textbook from what I can tell.
You were complaining about this textbook and now you aren't quoting it. So yes, Gould wrote an article that compares the actual geologic record with what a literal interpretation of Genesis would require and found such an interpretation lacking. Are you saying that it is inappropriate to do so because somebody might be upset over such a revelation? It is better to have a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I've just looked at that last 10 messages - Not a hint of the topic theme to be found.
There was some interesting stuff, albeit without atribution from where it seemingly came from online. Want to pursue the off-topic side themes? Find an appropriate topic or propose a new one. This topic closed. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024