Replies

Astrology doesn't seek to address questions of astronomy or astrophysics.

Barely relevant, since in order for astrology to be true, much of what we believe we know about physics in general would have to be revised anyway. But OK, let's assume that the concerns of astrology and astrophysics are orthogonal: that would count as a point in astrology's favor, as it would not have to overcome the mass of evidence supporting astrophysics as a prerequisite for building the case for its own validity.

Accordingly, when I compare creationism/ID to astrology, I am actually being generous.

ID or creation science do seek to address the same questions evolutionary biology tries to address.

There's dispute within the ID community about that, too. Every time you see somebody on one of these threads saying, "yes, but you can't tell me where life came from in the first place!", or "but where did the first cell come from?", or "evolution can't explain abiogenesis", or "you get your own dirt", they are making the case that the territories covered by evolution and creationism/ID are not congruent.

I am going to have to disageee with you concerning Astrology. After all, the gravity of Mars has some effect on you. It can be measured. Now, whether it will make you buy the Lexus instead of the scooter, is another question.

Astrology has been tested and has proven to be a wasteland, but that is much better than CR/ID which cannot ever be tested for anything without imploding.

So, I say, teach the controversy - Teach Astrology!!

The next great Public School Controversy.

Barely relevant, since in order for astrology to be true, much of what we believe we know about physics in general would have to be revised anyway.

I don't think astrology is developed in any way to make that true. Astrology simply uses symbols of astronomy, constellations, as names for things completely unrelated to anything having to do with physics, astrophysics or astronomy.

Astrology would better be made analogy with psychology for what astrology tries to explain.

Creation science, young earth belief, is actually more relevant to astronomy and astrophysic in being directly opposed. Creation scientists have their own geologists and astrophysicists who ostensibly provide evidence that the universe is young etc...