Teaching Science (Another Derbyshire Classic!)

National Review Online ^ | August 30 2005 | John Derbyshire

[RadioAstronomer]

People like you have to believe the symmetry of solar eclipse is a result of random chance. The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, yet the exact distance from the moon to form a perfect eclipse. If you think that happened by accidernt, you and the author of this tripe are morons.

ROTFLMAO!

[Mylo]

Um Newsflash for you dude. The Bible says that the value of Pi is 3. Not very "perfect".

[furball4paws]

Hey Junior, don't worry, be happy.

If 9852 is his Birthday the he has spent over 50 years wallowing in ingorance. He doesn't want you bursting his bubble.

[RobbyS]

I would not support the ID idea at all if I did not see it as different from the old argument from design. Cardinal Newman never had much trouble with Darwin's theory since it dealt with the traditional field of science, which was secondary causes. He had this in common with Huxley: that he viewed The views of the Bishop of Oxford as a kind of gnosticism. Many, many clergymen dabbled in science and, to a certain extent, tended to treat science as a kind of substitute for revelation. In fact they dominated the scientific associations at the time. Huxley coined the term, "agnosticism" in part as a kind of declaration of independence of the professional scientist from the clerical amateurs. So far so good. My problem is that he then used the term as repudiation of all theology--not just natural theology.

[jimmyray]

"Step one: obtain a computer with internet access. Step two: learn to use a search engine. Step three: Lysenkoism. "

You miss the point. Neither believed in God, and believed in natural means of biogenesis and change in genus (speciation is misleading word). Stalins world view led to a "cleansing" that dwarfs the holocaust.

BTW, thanks for the google lesson.

BTW PS, what was the sentence that preceded Patrick Henry's most famous quote? He was a creationist, incidentally. :)

Google that, and post the result for us, eh?

[Junior]

It simply shows that minor variations over time can cause big changes.

[Junior]

It does mean that next Thursday is his 53rd. Congrats mlc!

[jimmyray]

Patrick henry speech link

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

[Junior]

My impression of this debate is that it's largely a result of religionists and atheists jockeying to undermine each other's point of view and poke one another in the eye.

Then you would be wrong. Not all evos are atheists. The two are not synonymous. Indeed, for many of us it's actually a battle over interpretation of Scripture.

[jimmyray]

It simply shows that minor variations over time can cause big changes.

Not changes in Genus. That is the whole argument, isn't it?

[The Red Zone]

Science is science, and ought to be taught in our public schools conservatively, from the professional consensus, as settled fact. Religion is quite a different thing.

Just what I would expect from an Atheist. Science is the Fact; Religion is the "quite a different thing" i.e. Fiction.

[ValenB4]

Bravo to John Derbyshire, the only reason to read NR!

[The Red Zone]

This is Bush at his muddle-headed worst, conferring all the authority of the presidency on the teaching of pseudoscience in science classes.

This is also inaccurate. Bush never said "where" this was to be addressed. It could be addressed through humanities classes i.e. Philosophy.

[Junior]

If Genesis got it wrong, the whole Bible is in question and invalid...

Why? Is the Bible invalid because it says that rabbits chew their cud, or that bats are birds, or that locusts have four legs? If most Christians are willing to overlook those faux pas, why can't they accept the validity of Scripture without taking Genesis literally?

[Gumlegs]

It does seem odd to me that evolutionists here seem to make a large distinction between that theory and abiogenesis. A true believer in natural process and a disbeliever of divine or supernatural forces should have no problem incorporating that component into the theory, although it certainly has less empirical support.

People who accept the theory of gravitation don't have an explanation for the beginning of matter -- should that be considered a problem for them? The theory of evolution covers speciation. The beginning of life, which presumably occurred before speciation, is outside the theory. It would seem that by avoiding something for which we have no evidence, that evolutionists demonstrate their caution, not the recklessness they're accused of.

[mlc9852]

I'm a she - and I don't think he's too concerned with my opinion - lol.

[Junior]

I don't think OS realizes the Moon's orbit is elliptical and sometimes it doesn't completely occlude the Sun, while at other times it more than compensates.

Not all creationists are like that, though. Some go so far as to accept the notion of "wildly elliptical" orbits...

[Conservative til I die]

Derbyshire's the antiChristian over at National Review's "The Corner" blog right? Makes an ass of himself regularly.

[mlc9852]

Over time? Billions of years - were you around billions of years ago?

[mlc9852]

I am a SHE! And thanks!