| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Copernicus was wrong -- bible says so -- "religious right" b
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Kickin' Ass and Takin' Na |
 Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
An emergent scandal over a Texas Republican Party politician's
distribution of a memo citing a "fixed Earth" website alleging the
Earth to be non-rotating and at the center of the universe has raised
the question; where do such eccentric views as Rep. Chisum's, that the
Copernican model of the Solar System is wrong and derives from a
Jewish Kabbalistic Conspiracy, come from ? Until recently, it's been
generally assumed that the debate over heliocentric vs. geocentric
models of the universe, that raged up until the advent of Copernicus,
had been well resolved. Lately though, an American movement has sought
to restore the Earth to a central position in the grand cosmological
scheme... Since the existence of the "Flat Earth Society" became a
widely traveled joke, it has become hard to determine if card-carrying
flat-earthers really exist any more; many join the society for
amusement. But, there are real geocentrists who dream of spheres
within spheres and orreries, speculate that Copernicus killed Tycho
Brahe and write dense, arcane mathematical proofs placing the Earth at
the center of it all. Variants of such views apparently can be found
in the Texas State legislature and, in 1999, Tom Willis --head of the
Mid-Atlantic Creation Research Association-- was " intrumental in
revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references
to evolution, earth history, and science methodology". Willis was also
a "geocentrist" and wrote, in 2000, a bold manifesto for both Young-
Earth Creationism and Geocentrism:
"...all experiments to demonstrate that the earth moves at all have
failed. All seem to indicate the earth does not move at all. There is
much evidence that the earth is young and cannot possibly be millions,
much less billions of years old but we will not treat that herein....
The Bible does not say that the earth is at the center of the
universe. But, anyone looking up can see that the sun, planets and
stars are moving. Galileo argued that this motion was relative, that
really the earth was spinning and it only looks like these other
objects move. But, both the observations and the Bible indicate quite
strongly that the earth does not move." - Tom Willis
Tom Willis wasn't the only geocentrist toiling away to reverse
scientific theories that had been accepted for centuries. Indeed,
geocentrists could be found in orbit, frolicking and also fighting
with Copernicans, around a key ideological and theological
gravitational center of the Christian right : the Chalcedon
Foundation.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#48148 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
Quote: An emergent scandal over a Texas Republican Party politician's
distribution of a memo citing a "fixed Earth" website alleging the
*Plonk* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
Quote: where do such eccentric views as Rep. Chisum's, that the
Copernican model of the Solar System is wrong and derives from a
Jewish Kabbalistic Conspiracy, come from ?
Maybe he isn't a right-wing fundamentalist Christian Republican.
He could be black, and a Rastafarian. Then these unfortunate views
would simply be tenets of his faith, and we should leave him alone.
He had better have such an excuse. Unless, of course, you're making
all this up, as a previous poster seems to believe for some reason.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| RMOLLISE |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 16, 10:01 pm, "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Quote: Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
where do such eccentric views as Rep. Chisum's, that the
Copernican model of the Solar System is wrong and derives from a
Jewish Kabbalistic Conspiracy, come from ?
Maybe he isn't a right-wing fundamentalist Christian Republican.
He could be black, and a Rastafarian. Then these unfortunate views
would simply be tenets of his faith, and we should leave him alone.
He had better have such an excuse. Unless, of course, you're making
all this up, as a previous poster seems to believe for some reason.
John Savard
Unfortunately, he's NOT making this up. And the guy in question dang
shore ain't a Rastaman, either. ;-)
A Texas lawmaker _is_ apparently pushing this. What's next? I imagine
that will be demands that geocentrism must be taught alongside
heliocentrism in public schools in order to be FAIR? ;-)
Unk Rod |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
Quote: A Texas lawmaker _is_ apparently pushing this. What's next? I imagine
that will be demands that geocentrism must be taught alongside
heliocentrism in public schools in order to be FAIR? 
I will oppose these demands.
If there *were* a significant number of geocentric religious believers
to be concerned about - which I doubt will ever occur - I would accept
teaching Copernicanism in a "culturally sensitive" fashion, as is my
position with evolution.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| RMOLLISE |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 17, 10:42 am, "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Quote: RMOLLISE wrote:
A Texas lawmaker _is_ apparently pushing this. What's next? I imagine
that will be demands that geocentrism must be taught alongside
heliocentrism in public schools in order to be FAIR? ;-)
I will oppose these demands.
If there *were* a significant number of geocentric religious believers
to be concerned about - which I doubt will ever occur - I would accept
teaching Copernicanism in a "culturally sensitive" fashion, as is my
position with evolution.
John Savard
"Culturally sensitive" in what way? How? And don't discount this. How
many people thought the Scopes trial had settled the evolution debate
80 years ago?
Unk Rod |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
Quote: Unfortunately, he's NOT making this up. And the guy in question dang
shore ain't a Rastaman, either. ;-)
A Texas lawmaker _is_ apparently pushing this. What's next? I imagine
that will be demands that geocentrism must be taught alongside
heliocentrism in public schools in order to be FAIR?
Google being my friend, I found further detail about this controversy:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/02/warren_chisum_h.html
It turns out that Representative Warren Chisum does not believe in
evolution, all right.
And, being a Young Earth Creationist, he also denies the Big Bang.
And so, in advancing his argument against the Big Bang, he made
reference to a web site on which evidence appeared which he considered
credible that the idea of a Big Bang 15 billion years ago derives not
from science, but rather from the religious notions of the ancient
Pharisees.
As it happened, somewhere else *on that web site*, to which
Representative Chisum made reference - which, of course, is not proof
he read the *entire* web site - are arguments against the Copernican
theory.
This may speak volumes about the degree of caution Warren Chisum
exercises when referring to sources that happen to support his
beliefs. But it says nothing about his personal beliefs regarding the
heliocentric theory, and it is entirely possible that he is perfectly
willing to reconcile it with his Scriptural beliefs.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
Quote: Unfortunately, he's NOT making this up. And the guy in question dang
shore ain't a Rastaman, either.
Well, you can understand why I thought he might have been smoking
something!
And perhaps the name of Shirley Chisholm was lurking in the back of my
thoughts somewhere as well as I groped for possibilities to explain
something so incongrouous.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
Quote: "Culturally sensitive" in what way? How? And don't discount this. How
many people thought the Scopes trial had settled the evolution debate
80 years ago?
As I note in another reply to your post, looking deeper into this, it
turns out that Representative Warren Chisum has not made any public
criticism of the heliocentric theory. As a Young Earth Creationist, he
denies the Big Bang, and he happened to cite something he saw on a web
site that *elsewhere*, in a portion he likely had not read, took a
position against Copernicus.
I suspect the current controversy will wind up giving birth to a new
"urban legend".
In the case of evolution, what I mean by culturally sensitive is this:
Textbooks will teach evolution, not creation or "intelligent design".
But while they will present the facts and arguments in favor of
evolution, and they will not present any disclaimers which imply a
lack of credibility to evolution, or credibility for creationism, and
they will not "teach the controversy" when there is no real
controversy...
they _will_ disclaim teaching any conclusions about the actual origin
of life.
We are teaching you the allegations of certain scientists about the
origin of life.
You will be examined on your knowledge of these allegations.
We will not say how likely we think these allegations are to be true.
We will not say why we do not take the time to teach you about other
ideas concerning the origin of life.
You will be left free to draw your own conclusions in this matter.
While we may believe these allegations to be very credible, and
therfore worthy of inclusion in the curriculum, we respect your
freedom to believe that we are mistaken, and so we shall word all our
examinations so that you can get a perfect score without uttering the
slightest abjuration or contradiction of the least verse of Genesis.
Those of you who are Creationists, therefore, cannot complain that we
are persecuting you, and pressuring you to deny your faith. The rest
of the students can get a big laugh at the hypocrisy of the adult
world, and the level of stupidity it sometimes has to show respect to.
The Creationists should get what the First Amendment demands they are
owed... but nothing more. I would even say they deserve it.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mij Adyaw |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Evolution is just a theory as is intelligent design. Both should be taught
in schools. How many of you (over 45 folks) had to worry about kids bringing
guns to school when you were growing-up? Why do we have this problem today?
Did you ever ponder that question? The answer is simple, however, it will
most likely offend the staunch atheists in this group. It is due to the lack
of spirituality of today's youth. Kids today worship the MTV Rapper as God
rather than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Many of today's youth have no
moral values. Teaching them that they are the descendants of Monkeys only
reinforces their already warped view of the world, lack of spirituality,
self-centeredness, and lack of respect for other folks. I don't have any
children, but most of my friends and family send their children to Christian
Schools because they teach creationism rather than evolution and impart
moral values. The lack of spirituality that is currently rampant in this
country was predicted by the Bible. Open your bible and more importantly,
"open your mind to the concept of faith" and you will be enlightened.
Regards,
-mij
"Someone babbled the following sarcastic attack on the religious members of
this newsgroup:" :-(
Quote:
Those of you who are Creationists, therefore, cannot complain that we
are persecuting you, and pressuring you to deny your faith. The rest
of the students can get a big laugh at the hypocrisy of the adult
world, and the level of stupidity it sometimes has to show respect to.
The Creationists should get what the First Amendment demands they are
owed... but nothing more. I would even say they deserve it.
"Here is some information from a person with a grasp of reality and an
open-mind"
We shall begin with the philosophical aspects of A Brief History of Time,
which really explains why it has sold so many copies. Stephen Hawking has
stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without
mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on
the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the
scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways
that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would
just have to go by personal belief."
When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing
world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the
law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris L Peterson |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:47:04 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com>
wrote:
Quote: Evolution is just a theory as is intelligent design. Both should be taught
in schools...
ID is not a scientific theory. It has no place in any science class.
<remaining OT BS snipped>
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| RMOLLISE |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 17, 11:19 am, "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Quote: RMOLLISE wrote:
"Culturally sensitive" in what way? How? And don't discount this. How
many people thought the Scopes trial had settled the evolution debate
80 years ago?
As I note in another reply to your post, looking deeper into this, it
turns out that Representative Warren Chisum has not made any public
criticism of the heliocentric theory. As a Young Earth Creationist, he
denies the Big Bang, and he happened to cite something he saw on a web
site that *elsewhere*, in a portion he likely had not read, took a
position against Copernicus.
I suspect the current controversy will wind up giving birth to a new
"urban legend".
In the case of evolution, what I mean by culturally sensitive is this:
Textbooks will teach evolution, not creation or "intelligent design".
But while they will present the facts and arguments in favor of
evolution, and they will not present any disclaimers which imply a
lack of credibility to evolution, or credibility for creationism, and
they will not "teach the controversy" when there is no real
controversy...
they _will_ disclaim teaching any conclusions about the actual origin
of life.
We are teaching you the allegations of certain scientists about the
origin of life.
You will be examined on your knowledge of these allegations.
We will not say how likely we think these allegations are to be true.
We will not say why we do not take the time to teach you about other
ideas concerning the origin of life.
snip
The Creationists should get what the First Amendment demands they are
owed... but nothing more. I would even say they deserve it.
John Savard
Hi John:
That's good, since the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to
do with how life began. This is something I see come up in Evo/
Crevo debates all the time for no good reason. Certainly, science has
some pretty good ideas about how life may have originated, but those
ideas are WAY beyond the scope of Evolutionary theory.
Nobody I know of wants to deny Creationists their First Amendment
rights. The problem is that Creationists want to teach _religion_ in
science class.
Unk Rod |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| RMOLLISE |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 17, 12:01 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
Quote: On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:47:04 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <m...@SpamBucket.com
wrote:
Evolution is just a theory as is intelligent design. Both should be taught
in schools...
ID is not a scientific theory. It has no place in any science class.
remaining OT BS snipped
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
Hi Chris:
What continues to be a problem? Many Americans have little idea what
the word "theory" means in science and little understanding of how the
Scientific Method works. They tend to mistakenly believe "theory"
means "suspect," "likely untrue," "unsupported," etc. ;-)
Unk Rod |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| RMOLLISE |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 17, 11:08 am, "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Quote: RMOLLISE wrote:
Unfortunately, he's NOT making this up. And the guy in question dang
shore ain't a Rastaman, either. ;-)
Well, you can understand why I thought he might have been smoking
something!
And perhaps the name of Shirley Chisholm was lurking in the back of my
thoughts somewhere as well as I groped for possibilities to explain
something so incongrouous.
John Savard
Why Shirly Chisholm? My memory of her is of a great and wise lady.
Unk Rod |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris L Peterson |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 17 Feb 2007 09:19:35 -0800, "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Quote: In the case of evolution, what I mean by culturally sensitive is this:
I hope my kids never have a science teacher who thinks that way. When
kids in my classes bring up creationism, I tell them their beliefs
aren't supported by evidence. Period. There is no room for "cultural
sensitivity" in science. You teach the theories, you teach what evidence
allows us to place a certain level of confidence in those theories, when
there is more than one major theory you teach them all. If any of those
theories conflict with non-scientific beliefs held by some students,
tough. It's science class.
I personally find Christianity a deeply offensive and dangerous belief
system. But in a religious studies class, I'm not offended by what is
taught; that's the point of the class. I can study it without believing
there is any truth. Similarly, there is no reason for anybody to be
offended by what is taught in science, whether they choose to believe it
or not.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:40 pm
|
|