Aaron Although you demonstrated that certain logical statements work both ways, I donÂt believe Chuch was trying to marginalize anything. I believe he has consistently tried to separate science and philosophy/religion in the classroom so that if you choose to learn science you donÂt get philosophy passed off as science and visa versa. And Scott, your statement ÂPlease cite a journal article where one tenant of the theory of creationism has been scientifically tested and published. Says to me that you believe science will be the judge over religious based beliefs. No matter what the outcome, it wonÂt solve the dilemma. The theory idea in science is a great idea. Some smart person(s) comes up with a giant virtual jigsaw puzzle and then people can go out and try to find the real pieces. When unexpected pieces are found, then the smart people figure out how to make the new pieces fit until the theory more closely approximates reality or a better theory is conjured up. In the process, we have learned a lot. Religion/philosophy doesnÂt lend itself to theory. Religion/philosophy starts from the other end. Religion/philosophy start with  some source says this is what is. But like Clinton so clearly explained, it depends on what is is and therein lies the rub. Different groups have different ideas as to what is is in religion. They all pretty much believe there is a (are some) God/god(s) So for science to try and prove religion/philosophy  we ÂainÂt even close in my view. The issue as discussed in this forum as I see it is should we support or appose Intelligent Design to be taught in the classroom and star parties; presumably first through the twelfth grade and Harmons. It just seems to me that this is something that can too easily be abused. It just wonÂt have the outcome we might hope for. Jim Gibson Scott Catron <zaui@yahoo.com> wrote:Please cite a journal article where one tenant of the theory of creationism has been scientifically tested and published. --- "Lambert, Aaron" wrote:
Allow me to show the flip-side of the coin.
I strongly resent some evolutionists as characterizing rank and file creationists as being "non-scientists". HOW DARE THEY?!! This reeks of intellectual elitism.
How can "scientists" admit that, "the fossil record is not complete..." yet also argue so vehemently that any alternative ideas are preposterous? The THEORY of evolution is just a THEORY. It is an idea that someone came up with to try to describe observations. According to the tenets of science, anyone can come up with a theory that they feel supports a specific group of data. Much of what is proposed by the theory of evolution is just as unprovable and unobservable as are those things claimed by the "theory" of ID. Many will probably argue that in time we will have the ability to prove the theory of evolution or test its claims. That is likely true, but if we are making up technology to prove our points, I could also claim that we may also develop the technology to test things of a spiritual nature. We will then be able to prove or disprove whether IDs claims are accurate.
It's too bad that some people feel a need to marginalize spiritual beliefs in order to validate their "science".
Aaron
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:59 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
And while I'm at it, I have to say that I strongly resent some creationists and ID proponents characterizing rank & file evolutionists as "Godless". How dare they? HOW DARE THEY?!! What a terrible, gross misjudgment. This reeks of the dark side of fundamentalism.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.