Comments on: Stanford supports reality http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:51:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: ken rodman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16495 ken rodman Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:43:11 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16495 "Creationism includes a belief that all forms of life have always existed in their present form and that the world was formed in 4004 BC" Im curious as to how creationists came up with that date. Maybe this belongs in a theology discussion but id like to point out that 2 PETER 3:8 States "With the lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day" since god took 6 days to create the earth and rested on the 7th, seems to me thats 7 thousand years before anything else happened..... “Creationism includes a belief that all forms of life have always existed in their present form and that the world was formed in 4004 BC”

Im curious as to how creationists came up with that date. Maybe this belongs in a theology discussion but id like to point out that 2 PETER 3:8 States “With the lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day”

since god took 6 days to create the earth and rested on the 7th, seems to me thats 7 thousand years before anything else happened…..

]]> By: Delance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16478 Delance Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:24:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16478 "I still don’t understand why religious people are so concerned." Well, maybe if there weren't so many people telling them evolution and religion were incompatible, they wouldn't care. The funny thing is that both creationists and some atheists seem to make this point. "I am one of those oddballs that believes in God, and loves science." I don't see how you could possibly be an oddball. Science and atheism are two separate things. "I think people should learn about God/religion in church, and science in school." I don't see why people can't learn about religion in school, in, like, history class, or even religious class if it's a religious school. I learned all about science in my catholic school. Being ignorant about religion doesn't make one, by default, smarter on science. “I still don’t understand why religious people are so concerned.”

Well, maybe if there weren’t so many people telling them evolution and religion were incompatible, they wouldn’t care.

The funny thing is that both creationists and some atheists seem to make this point.

“I am one of those oddballs that believes in God, and loves science.”

I don’t see how you could possibly be an oddball. Science and atheism are two separate things.

“I think people should learn about God/religion in church, and science in school.”

I don’t see why people can’t learn about religion in school, in, like, history class, or even religious class if it’s a religious school. I learned all about science in my catholic school. Being ignorant about religion doesn’t make one, by default, smarter on science.

]]> By: Ingrid http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16477 Ingrid Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:57:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16477 The whole concept of "evolution dismantling children's belief in god" is ludicrous! I was atheist BEFORE I was even remotely aware of Darwin's mgnificent contribution. I remember distinctly in third grade realizing that religion in general seemed to be nothing more than a tool of the patriarchy, used mostly to advance their own whims and prejudices rather than benefiting society and its people. It's important to note that this was the era in which I was discovering the deluge of discrimination against women perpetrated by various religions. I'm 18 now, but am considering joining a synagogue only to maintain my Jewish (cultural) heritage as well as sticking it to the Jesus-Man and Hitler. The whole concept of “evolution dismantling children’s belief in god” is ludicrous! I was atheist BEFORE I was even remotely aware of Darwin’s mgnificent contribution. I remember distinctly in third grade realizing that religion in general seemed to be nothing more than a tool of the patriarchy, used mostly to advance their own whims and prejudices rather than benefiting society and its people. It’s important to note that this was the era in which I was discovering the deluge of discrimination against women perpetrated by various religions. I’m 18 now, but am considering joining a synagogue only to maintain my Jewish (cultural) heritage as well as sticking it to the Jesus-Man and Hitler.

]]> By: butchbailey.com » Blog Archive » Scientists Worldwide Issue Statement On Science Education http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16476 butchbailey.com » Blog Archive » Scientists Worldwide Issue Statement On Science Education Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:49:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16476 [...] Hat tip to Bad Astronomy [...] […] Hat tip to Bad Astronomy […]

]]> By: Nigel Depledge http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16479 Nigel Depledge Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:49:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16479 'S funny, you know, in a way... Since you first posted about ID last year, Phil, I followed links you included to Pharyngula, The Panda's Thumb and thence to Talk Origins. I think I have now read nearly the whole TO archive. And I am more convinced than ever before that: (a) Evolution with common descent is the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that makes sense; and (b) Those opposed to evolution have frequently demonstrated astonishingly poor scholarship and have deliberately misled their readership/audience. Who was it that said "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour..."? 'Cos the ID proponents didn't listen. Oh, and in case any of you don't already know, here's the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html ‘S funny, you know, in a way…

Since you first posted about ID last year, Phil, I followed links you included to Pharyngula, The Panda’s Thumb and thence to Talk Origins. I think I have now read nearly the whole TO archive.

And I am more convinced than ever before that:
(a) Evolution with common descent is the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that makes sense; and
(b) Those opposed to evolution have frequently demonstrated astonishingly poor scholarship and have deliberately misled their readership/audience.

Who was it that said “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour…”? ‘Cos the ID proponents didn’t listen.

Oh, and in case any of you don’t already know, here’s the link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

]]> By: Nigel Depledge http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16480 Nigel Depledge Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:18:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16480 Patrick Riley said: "It is more accurate to say “… 4,600 million years ago as scientific evidence suggests.” (And here I even used the softer “suggests” instead as “says” or “proves.”)" Patrick, I think I would have used "indicates", which gives a firmer sense than "suggests" without going as far as "proves". Although, I think it would also be a viable option to use "proves beyond any reasonable doubt". Patrick Riley said:
“It is more accurate to say “… 4,600 million years ago as scientific evidence suggests.” (And here I even used the softer “suggests” instead as “says” or “proves.”)”

Patrick, I think I would have used “indicates”, which gives a firmer sense than “suggests” without going as far as “proves”. Although, I think it would also be a viable option to use “proves beyond any reasonable doubt”.

]]> By: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16494 Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:36:37 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/06/26/stanford-supports-reality/#comment-16494 1. It's Haldane. "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose." <i>Possible Worlds</i>, 1927, I think, though the Net is treacherous on this point. 2. Darwin may live, but his tortoise, Harriet, just died. See http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/24/tortoise.die.ap/ 1. It’s Haldane. “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose.” Possible Worlds, 1927, I think, though the Net is treacherous on this point.

2. Darwin may live, but his tortoise, Harriet, just died. See http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/24/tortoise.die.ap/

]]>