- comment
.... - body
- Oh god... Not another Galileo incident…
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I'm sure you'd relish such an event.
- comment ....
- body
- No... I dont relish when my church tries to shun science.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Good -- then you have no reason to fear any incident.
- comment ....
- body
- Intelligent Design=Geocentrism.
I'm worried.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- That's idiotic.
- comment Kenton
- body
- Must be a tacit admission that intelligent design actually is injecting religion and God into the public schools. After all, I don't believe the Pope would take a position that doesn't include God in creation.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Intelligent design has long been a theological position, without question.
Now whether ID belongs in the science classroom or in the philosophy classroom, I don't believe is a matter for debate.
Brain Greene, I think, had an excellent argument against philosophy's interference in scientific inquiry (specifically against Kantians and continental philosophy) regarding the discovery of the electron.
Philosophical perspective certainly taints one's interpretation of the results. Unfortunately we teach science in classrooms without teaching students why they interpret their results as they do... a detriment IMO, but it's hard to find good philosophy teachers at the university level much less at the high school level.
Long and short of it, I think philosophy of science has a place in the classroom. All this having been argued, it is the responsibility of any school to help forge creative and thinking minds, not puppets that regurgitate information presented by their teachers. But I'm ranting now... :)
- comment Mike
- body
- James ...
The hypothesis of Evolution (It doesn't even make it to the level of theory, since it is NOT demonstrable nor predictable) is based largely on speculation and circular reasoning. Since it is based upon logical fallacy, that would make it illogical.
Now, while you may not relish "when your church shuns science", you must then know how your Church feels when you shun religious Truths. Did you see my response to you in the other thread regarding absolute morality and homosexuality? I'd be very interested to know how you can answer that one.
9 Comments:
I'm worried.
Now whether ID belongs in the science classroom or in the philosophy classroom, I don't believe is a matter for debate.
Brain Greene, I think, had an excellent argument against philosophy's interference in scientific inquiry (specifically against Kantians and continental philosophy) regarding the discovery of the electron.
Philosophical perspective certainly taints one's interpretation of the results. Unfortunately we teach science in classrooms without teaching students why they interpret their results as they do... a detriment IMO, but it's hard to find good philosophy teachers at the university level much less at the high school level.
Long and short of it, I think philosophy of science has a place in the classroom. All this having been argued, it is the responsibility of any school to help forge creative and thinking minds, not puppets that regurgitate information presented by their teachers. But I'm ranting now... :)
The hypothesis of Evolution (It doesn't even make it to the level of theory, since it is NOT demonstrable nor predictable) is based largely on speculation and circular reasoning. Since it is based upon logical fallacy, that would make it illogical.
Now, while you may not relish "when your church shuns science", you must then know how your Church feels when you shun religious Truths. Did you see my response to you in the other thread regarding absolute morality and homosexuality? I'd be very interested to know how you can answer that one.
Post a Comment
Home