Re: OT: Gravity explained

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:21:15 +1300, Terry Given <my_name@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:15:13 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5is8t2tqotjuifcq89gdo5g1nkf4foropb@xxxxxxxxxx


Has that been tried lately? Seems to me that the trend is to teach
orthodox (random mutation/selection) evolution only, and not even
mention, however briefly, alternate concepts. The origin of life is a
mystery, so should be taught as such. I guess it's tough for the
science education establishment to admit that they don't know
everything.

Science is repeatable.

Religion is not.




I'm not advocating teaching religion, but rather mentioning various
theories of the origin of life, and pointing out that none are proven.


but if one wants to mention the creationist theory, in a science class,
should one not point out the wealth of evidence that tends to suggest
its crap? like, for example, the creationist insistence that the earth
is 6,000 years old (best not to think about the 7,000 year old artefacts
of human civilisation that archaeologists keep digging up).

(all ID proponents appear to be creationists)


I'm not.

surely the real point re. ID is that its NOT a *scientific* theory. it
makes no predictions, testable or otherwise.

(OK, you can still call it a scientific theory, its just a very bad one)

as opposed to, say (I forget the guys name) the idea that DNA et al came
from cometary material, which is what kick-started life here on earth.

Panspermia. That's not impossible or, in my opion, even unreasonable.
It ought to be mentioned in science classes.

People keep associating non-random-evolution theories of the origin of
life on earth with religious creationism, so they can then shoot all
other theories down.

Jumping genes, prions, masers, atomic fission, the kinetic theory of
gasses, all sorts of stuff was once scourned by the scientific
establishment. It would be folly to assume that nature has no
surprises left for us.


OK, it wouldnt be to hard to come up with a more scientific ID theory -
eg we were developed as a meat species by a bunch of aliens living near
Alpha Centauri, who are still there, and periodically come back to
harvest us when the planet fills up (which is why the dinosaurs died
out, they were tasty); alien abductions are just quality control.

And science, historically, has not been repeatable. Actually, religion
has probably been *more* repeatable than science. How many 3000-year
old science texts are still in use?

John

thats a little bit unfair. how many 3000-year-old scientific principles
are still in use? hydraulics have been around for a long time, as have
compression structures - hell, civil engineers have only been able to
build tension structures for a few centuries. Pi anyone? Astronomy, to
work out eclipses (a-la stonehenge)? Geometry? those things still hold
true today.

Pure math has endured for millenia. Practically no other quantitative
science has. I grant that we're getting pretty close on lots of things
- conservation of energy looks like a keeper - but there's still a lot
to learn about evolution and climate and cellular mechanisms, so
dogmatism is just an impediment to progress. Discoveries are nearly
always contrarian.


OTOH the book of genesis contains two contradictory stories of the
beginning. And I defy you to cough up a 3,000 year old bible

Did I say "bible"?

that looks
even vaguely like the modern ones (a 3000 y.o. new testament would cause
no small amount of problems for the jesus-based faiths). The entire
jesus-based thing isnt 3,000 years old (IIRC its 2007 Anno Domini).
Mohammed was circa 600AD. I dont think there are many followers of Ra
still around,

but lots of Jews.

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... We're talking about evolution, which is orthogonal. ... Science has shown that this is not the case. ... >>>to all life and explains everything. ... >>eukaryotes are related through a single common ancestor. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What does ID have to offer to the scientific community?
    ... tell science when some line of research was pointless, ... phenomenon" of evolution from lower to higher ordered life. ... the evolution of a new organ or system over a human lifetime. ... Richard Dawkins's views on God and theism are not evolutionary theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Poor Darwin
    ... The Young Earth Creationists believe ... you misunderstand and misrepresent how science works. ... evolution itself is unscientific. ... > Judgments a surprise to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: FYI
    ... uttered the example of a giraffe's neck in conjunction with the ToE. ... (Kinda like science.) ... The folks who are upset are the Creationists who backed this fiasco. ... evolution, even when it is pointed to reapeatedly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Adaptive Peaks in Typing
    ... shift from being a creationist to becoming someone who views life on ... They don't see their own beliefs and coping ... So it's not just a matter of arguing against individual creationists. ... creationists isn't with describing how the process of evolution works ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading