c.i.,
No problem. Actually, I have seen you admit before there are extremists on both sides of this issue.
rosborne,
I do believe such scientists are in the minority. The National Center for Science Education has pointed out that a few do exist and are actually doing a disservice to evolution education.
I know Scott as a concerned scientist and one who has always espoused "keep the paths separate. Dont teach religious based beliefs in science and , likewise, dont make pronouncements of authority about religion, just because we are scientists"
Thats agood string of reason. I dont recall anywhere in these threads since abuzz, where a "down with religion" stance has been espoused. Weve all been very circumspect about that. Ive found that the Creationist side has been the ones whove lay down the rule that "evolution and Christianity cannot coexist" I can find at least 3 examples of that from recent threads.
OOPS, Ive just read some of the previous posts and all I can say is what my standards are.
As a proponent or science in science class,in any upcoming debate, surely, that, if we espouse the total removal of the surveys of religions, catechisms and apologetics(whatever our spiritual beliefs) ethics , etc, we begin to remove the credibility of our own arguments freom the factual to the spirituAL.
The cReationist side wants their beliefs taught as science and religion, most of us just have enough to deal with the sciences.
wandeljw wrote:rosborne,
I do believe such scientists are in the minority. The National Center for Science Education has pointed out that a few do exist and are actually doing a disservice to evolution education.
I'm not surprised that a few scientists would say this, and I agree they are doing a disservice to science and to themselves, but every profession has its extremists, even scientists. There are scientists who support creationism as well, but that still doesn't make creationism a science.
I would guess (and hope) that the percentage of scientists who feel that science invalidates religion is very small. As a matter of fact, I would predict that the percentage is almost identical to the number of scientists who support creationism (an equal slice of extremism on each end of the spectrum).
Was looking for a thread to put this in ... it's interesting/funny, in a trivial kind of way (or perhaps it's trivial, in an interesting way).
This is what happens when the subject comes to Holland:
Quote:RELIGIOUS PERSUASION
[..] the Volkskrant also has an article about the commotion over Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven, who suggested recently that science should 'respect' religion and that the teaching of evolution in biology classes should be "open to discussion."
The minister said she was looking for a 'dialogue' between science and religion, and wouldn't dream of interfering with education in the name of her religious beliefs. But the Volkskrant reports that, in the end, Ms van der Hoeven had to promise parliament never to do it again.
Meanwhile, Trouw takes her to task for suggesting that her calls for debate were merely a way to "bridge the gap" with Muslim immigrants alienated by all that evolution stuff. The paper quotes a Muslim member of parliament, who says most Muslims have no strong feelings about the issue either way and that the minister shouldn't "turn Muslims into Protestants" as a pretext for pushing her own religious agenda.
(Source: Radio Netherlands Press Review)
Radio Netherlands Press Review wrote:The paper quotes a Muslim member of parliament, who says most Muslims have no strong feelings about the issue either way and that the minister shouldn't "turn Muslims into Protestants" as a pretext for pushing her own religious agenda.
I love that one, it is just so hilarious . . .
Setanta wrote:Radio Netherlands Press Review wrote:The paper quotes a Muslim member of parliament, who says most Muslims have no strong feelings about the issue either way and that the minister shouldn't "turn Muslims into Protestants" as a pretext for pushing her own religious agenda.
I love that one, it is just so hilarious . . .
Yeh, the paper got a jab in at the protestants while dissing the minister.
rosborne979 wrote:Yeh, the paper got a jab in at the protestants while dissing the minister.
<raises hand>
Note that the Radio Netherlands Press Review lifted that quote from
Trouw -- a Protestant newspaper.
Quote:Trouw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Trouw is a Dutch newspaper. Trouw is a Dutch word meaning "fidelity" (cognate of the English "trow").
The Trouw was started during the second world war by members of the Dutch protestant resistance. The newspaper was published irregularly during the war due to lack of paper. The German occupying forces tried to stop publication by rounding up and imprisoning around twenty of the couriers. They issued an ultimatum to the leaders of Trouw; however, the editors did not give in and all of the captured couriers were executed.
Today, Trouw is considered a high quality newspaper in the Netherlands and is a part of the PCM group, along with NRC and de Volkskrant.
