(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] obsoletechild.livejournal.com at 01:48pm on 21/12/2006
HALLELUJAH!!!

Thank GOD they did that. What a stupid, ignorant thing to put on a SCIENCE book anyway. Everything in a science textbook is a theory to some extent or another. It only contains hypotheses of varying certainty that haven't yet been disproven.

I don't see them putting disclaimers on the Bible:

The text contained herein has not been conclusively verified or disproven. As with all historical counts recorded by human beings, it may be subject to transcription error or colored by the beliefs or feelings of the author. The facts alleged in the Bible are nothing more than one recordation of a period in time, and are unverifiable in their ancient nature.
[parent entry] [link] [reply]
maelorin: (hate)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 11:11pm on 21/12/2006
Scientific understanding has been under attack by vested interested (ignorant and otherwise) since long before we had recognisable "science" ... belief is a far more potent motivator than knowledge.

My personal hypothesis is that most people 'feel' rather than 'think' ... they make decisions based upon what they feel rather than thinking about things. I'd go so far as to say that a large proportion of people are so averse to thinking they'll do anything to avoid it. [thinking is hard, and feels bad/difficult - besides they don't really know how, and fear of failure/mistakes is a powerful motivator. much easier to follow what you're told is the right thing to do ...]

I don't see them putting disclaimers on the Bible:
Actually, in response to the textbook labelling, some atheists did pretty much exactly that ...
eg:
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

truthiness

posted by [identity profile] thork.livejournal.com at 12:29am on 22/12/2006
Colbert would agree with your hypothesis
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] obsoletechild.livejournal.com at 02:11pm on 22/12/2006
Wish I could see that disclaimer.

Linky no worky.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] arsenchik.livejournal.com at 12:31am on 31/12/2006
Yep. It's a theory, just like Euclidean geometry and Einstein's theory of relativity. What matters is the all of them are the best at modelling the physical reality when properly applied. But you don't see them trying to put disclaimers in geometry or physics books (though I think in America they don't do physics as a separate subject in high school). I suspect, though, that if they are successful in challenging evolution, they will then set their sights on physics, astronomy, etc.

Already, Grand Canyon park rangers are not allowed to state how old the canyon is according to modern geology.

The thing is, people completely ignorant of science are tryng their hand in setting science curriculum.
[link] [parent] [reply]
maelorin: (doctor who)

stupid design

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 06:07am on 01/01/2007
stupid begets stupid.
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
 2
 
3
 
 4
1
 5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
31