tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post1628212734394942929..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: 14 billion, not 6,000Jean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-72530932460806946382010-05-05T09:09:24.440-05:002010-05-05T09:09:24.440-05:00What I fail to see in any of these posts is that t...What I fail to see in any of these posts is that there is no scientific evidence that supports the 14 Billion year age of the earth, there is also no scientific evidence that the earth was crated within 7 days, in fact there is no scientific evidence that proves the earth is older than 4000 years. I'm sure it is, but I have no proof of this. Everyone seems to think that this is a battle Renierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07762099129553442520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-79008070829083833092010-04-18T14:39:06.938-05:002010-04-18T14:39:06.938-05:00I do think it may well be politcally untenable...a...I do think it may well be politcally untenable...at least in your neck of the woods. Still, atheist activists are not likely to be persuaded by that untenability. Here we confront the continuum of activist thinking: people who are "pragmatists" and focus on the art of the possible, and those who think we should push to the limits and beyond. <br /><br />In this particular case I'm Fausthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14221763658202924449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-87020978780511729052010-04-18T13:16:35.689-05:002010-04-18T13:16:35.689-05:00It's seems politically untenable to urge that ...It's seems politically untenable to urge that biologists should teach "the non-controversy"--as in, they should talk about creationism, but only negatively. So effectively, saying that creationism should be covered is allying yourself with the crowd that says "teach the controversy." School boards are never going to buy the idea that a theory ought to be covered, but Jean Kazeznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-26017434652545876662010-04-18T12:53:51.864-05:002010-04-18T12:53:51.864-05:00I'm pretty sure that Coyne thinks we should te...I'm pretty sure that Coyne thinks we should teach the NON-controversy. There is no controversy. So we can teach precisely that fact: that in the scientific community there is no controversy. "The Controversy" is the controversy between people making claims that they cannot support using scientific methods, and scientists. Of course I suppose there is SOME controversy, so we could Fausthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14221763658202924449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-74227524701974957512010-04-18T11:42:38.392-05:002010-04-18T11:42:38.392-05:00Teaching the controversy sets a dangerous preceden...Teaching the controversy sets a dangerous precedent. In the future any group that is vocal enough can insist that schools teach whatever stupid or evil theory that they propose: Holocaust denial, 9-11 conspiracies, etc.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-66070442405570105882010-04-18T11:28:47.724-05:002010-04-18T11:28:47.724-05:00The biblical creation story starts with some very ...The biblical creation story starts with some very basic stuff--let there be light! I take it that's the sun being created, so it's not just about the earth.<br /><br />Here's the irony of Coyne's argument (which I read quickly, I confess)--in the the wars over teaching evolution, it's the other side that usually says science teachers should "teach the controversy." Jean Kazeznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-50231885791395621902010-04-18T10:47:59.904-05:002010-04-18T10:47:59.904-05:00I think Coyne makes a compelling case, especially ...I think Coyne makes a compelling case, especially considering Darwin's discussions of the same topic. But along these same lines, I think we can use Darwin as a guide here: e.g.: <br /><br />"Cases of this nature are common, and are, as we shall hereafter more fully see, inexplicable on the theory of independent creation."<br /><br />I think there is room here for subtle Fausthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14221763658202924449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-21904938158226335532010-04-17T10:24:15.867-05:002010-04-17T10:24:15.867-05:00I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but I think th...I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but I think that the Buddhist idea that the universe is eternal (or infinite in time) does not contradict the idea that the universe is 14 billion years old,<br />since the Buddhists are not speaking of this universe, but of Being or what is. From what I know, scientist don't deny that Being may be eternal (or infinite in time): they just date this s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.com