religion the subject of their research. On occasion their conclusions
may be invalid - directed by their ideology rather than the data
themselves, but given peer review that's most often taken care of.
larry
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:50:52 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really?
>
> In my experience, i've rarely, if ever, seen science used as a means to attack religion (a few crazy atheists aside perhaps). Science is more than willing to leave religion completely alone. In fact, it'd just as soon ignore religion, since it has nothing much to contribute to a faith based endeavor.
>
> In most of these instances, and certainly in the case of the Kansas Board of Education decision that started this discussion, religious nutz were the instigators, using religion to attack science.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Dinowitz
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:39 PM
> Subject: RE: Here we go again....
>
> No, it shouldn't. A proper science class will explain the scientific method
> and then deal with science. The problem is that science is being used as a
> hammer to beat those who believe in God by saying that God does not exist
> (something they have never and can never prove so is outside of science). In
> response, the religious (or some of them) push for their side over science.
> What's needed is good teaching guidelines, not fights.
> As an aside, you can't scientifically prove love, poetry, hate, or a very
> large number of other things. Science examines the world, the physical, the
> tangible. It has deeeeep problems with the psychological, metaphysical, etc.
> Anyone who foolishly says that science disproves God should be asked to
> prove love. :)
>
> <snip>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
