[Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution

[Arnold Noronha]

On 13 May 2007 : "Sunith Velho" <sunith_v at rediffmail.com> in response to
Frederick Noronha's earlier post wrote:
Re: [Goanet] Tolerating Creationism

So, as far as these creationists don't block you on
believing what you want, why should you evolutionists >deny them of the
same?

Sunith responds:
Because creationism (or the Catholic version of it) is trying to creep
its
way into schools all over the world in the guise of a legitimate
scientific
theory and is being used to brainwash young children.

There is as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the
theory
that years ago a galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion
beings from an overcrowded corner of the universe, dumping them on Earth
before killing them with nuclear bombs(which is what Scientologists
believe!).

Sunith

Hello Fred and Sunith:
Your intense discourse on Mankind's Origins seems to have reached an
impasse. Apparently, the controversy surrounding this enigmatic scientific
subject with religious overtones or vice-versa,( as you like it) will not
be settled until Hell freeses over. Hence to you and like-minded Juggernauts
of Goanet engaged in this debate, I proffer the following verse :

Choosing between Creationism and Evolution
What?s the most rational and moral solution
To terminate ?nip and tuck? strife and elocution?
Without a face-saving and retarding dilution
Or the bathos of ravaging intellectual pollution

Scrubbing the intelligent with enlightening ablution
Could we develop an amalgamated convolution?
forgoing predilection, passion and seminal intuition
Ere mankind reaches the bloodshed of a revolution
Requiring a Higher Power(s)' stern interlocution

But for Heaven?s sake why have all this bitter consternation
Twixt savants for their opposing theories seeking justification
In the search for our Origins with scrutiny and elaboration
That seems to lead to Oblivion with internecine vilification
When what?s important is not our Origins but our Destination

Cheers
Arnold

_________________________________________________________________
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You?ll love Windows Live
Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

So is this an issue of:

* Religious agendas being pushed in State-funded schools (in which
case, can't people
believe what they want to, at the private level, s long as it
doesn't hurt the wider society)
* Falsehood being pushed over "truth" (who decides in a world where that humble
George Bush denies the reality of global warming)?
* What Catholics (or other creationists) believe and teach in their
own institutions?
(Why should we bother, if they do it on their own moolah?) Or are we like the
RSS, deciding what should be the syllabi of Madrasas, and laying it down for
others?
* What you want other people to believe, in a world which is
increasingly fighting
diversity, and it's becoming increasingly clear that we lack common
understandings
and shared approaches?

So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

May I remind you that the issue came up over what "Mario's camp"
believes, chooses to believe, or is seen to believe by our friend
Selma. It was not about what was being taught in schools in the US.
So couldn't someone accuse us of attempting to shift the goalposts?

I have no problem with what Mario believes... (that's his problem).
Even though I don't agree with him.

Please tell me why I should be concerned about his belief in
Creationism (assuming that is his belief). Thanks and regards, FN

PS: Arnold, your poem was very cool... and your talent in verse,
awesome (as they would say in your part of the world, where they also
teach Creationism to kids in school).

Let's also not forget that in Mario's camp, most
people believe that the world was created in 6 days,
based on that indisputable authority on scientific
reasoning known as the Bible. :-)
On 13 May 2007 : "Sunith Velho" <sunith_v at rediffmail.com> in response to
Re: [Goanet] Tolerating Creationism

So, as far as these creationists don't block you on
believing what you want, why should you evolutionists >deny them of the
same?

Because creationism (or the Catholic version of it) is trying to creep
its
way into schools all over the world in the guise of a legitimate
scientific
theory and is being used to brainwash young children.
There is as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the
theory
that years ago a galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion
beings from an overcrowded corner of the universe, dumping them on Earth
before killing them with nuclear bombs(which is what Scientologists
believe!).
Sunith

[Gabe Menezes]

........................................But for Heaven's sake why have
all this bitter consternation
Twixt savants for their opposing theories seeking justification
In the search for our Origins ..........................

Post by Arnold Noronha
Cheers
Arnold

Comment: There is only one Savant on his Goanet site !

[Carvalho]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"
<fredericknoronha at gmail.com> wrote:

* What Catholics (or other creationists) believe and

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
teach in their
own institutions?
(Why should we bother, if they do it on their own
moolah?) Or are we like the
RSS, deciding what should be the syllabi of
Madrasas, and laying it down for
others?

-------------------------------
Dear Frederick,

The RSS is not an elected body representative of the
people and hence it has no jurisdiction in India.
However, the government should definitely be looking
into what is taught in schools.

Isn't it a fact that students who come from madrasas
fair poorly at higher institutes of learning in India,
not to mention in the work-place? Hence, aren't we
doing a dis-service to young children who have no
choice in what their parents choose as their
instruction?

If someone wants to learn classical Islamic
literature, or the trails of Moses and Abraham, or the
medicinal merits of ayurveda, the benefits of yoga
breathing or the joys of stamp collecting, they are
free to do so at their own leisure but school
curriculum should be secular in all respects.

Incase you are going to ask if I will apply the same
standards to Catholic schools (also known as covent
schools), the reason they do well in India is because
their curriculum is secular and they offer an A-grade
education in all respects.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

[Sunith Velho]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

My demands are as follows:
*Ban all forms of Religious teaching in state funded schools.
*Stop parading religious fiction as plausible scientifc theory in all
schools(private and public)
*Stop the using of schools(private and public) to brainwash young children
with teachings based on dogmas, instead teach them that nothing is beyond
the realm of reason.

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
I have no problem with what Mario believes... (that's >>his problem).Even
though I don't agree with him.Please tell me why I should be concerned
about his belief....

I am concerned about his beliefs because, my spam filters(now that they are
working) overflow every few days with his unsolicited mails. What he or his
kind are doing to the US school system is none of my concern. If ID was
being taught in Indian schools I would be concerned.

Closer to home, what right wing religious zealots such as MM Joshi in India
are trying to do to our education system because of their private
(religious) beliefs is of great concern to me. Are you saying that I should
not be concerned when an HRD minister believes astrology is a science and
tries to force it into the science curriculum?

If the next Economic Minsiter of India privately believes in numerology,
should I share your attitude?

Should we also assume that people's private beliefs have no bearing on the
way they conduct themselves in public life?

Selma has rightly pointed out the perils of an approach that condones
illogical and sometimes dangerous beliefs in the name of being tolerant
towards other cultures and religions.

Sunith

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

Post by Sunith Velho

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

*Ban all forms of Religious teaching in state funded schools.

Why? Whether you like it or not (and whether you believe in a god or
not), religion is a reality we cannot wish away. It would make a lot
of sense to teach kids religion, not from a faith perspective, but
with a goal of understanding what it means to believe in one religion
in a pluralistic society. One where religion could be the basis for
the fault-lines developing for the major conflicts of the future.

Post by Sunith Velho
*Stop parading religious fiction as plausible scientifc theory in all
schools(private and public)

You're sounding very fundamentalist here. Some part of "scientific
theory" is also fiction, as time has shown. I think kids need to
encounter religion, and decide for themselves (as Kevin did it, late
in life) on whether to keep it or not.

Post by Sunith Velho
*Stop the using of schools(private and public) to brainwash young children
with teachings based on dogmas, instead teach them that nothing is beyond
the realm of reason.

One man's dogma is another man's science. For instance, neo-liberalism
as a dogma, Keynesian economic thought at another era, and so on.

Post by Sunith Velho
I am concerned about his beliefs because, my spam filters(now that they are
working) overflow every few days with his unsolicited mails. What he or his
kind are doing to the US school system is none of my concern. If ID was
being taught in Indian schools I would be concerned.

Yeah, since we cannot build sufficient computer techies (and you won't
support India Linux Users' Group-Goa too) it's time to call in the
thought police.

Post by Sunith Velho
Closer to home, what right wing religious zealots such as MM Joshi in India
are trying to do to our education system because of their private
(religious) beliefs is of great concern to me. Are you saying that I should
not be concerned when an HRD minister believes astrology is a science and
tries to force it into the science curriculum?

Mario is not any minister holding public office, as far as I know.
That is what raked off the topic. Now, you seem intent on shifting
goalposts, and widening the issues.

You have every right to "be concerned". Question is: what can you do
to challenge such issues? Are you in a position to take 90% of the
population, which believes in some kind of religion, along with you?
Or is your rhetoric so shrill that it is the religious extremists who
manage to win the day, with arguments like "pseudosecularism",
"abortion", "anti-national", and whatever else?

Post by Sunith Velho
If the next Economic Minsiter of India privately believes in numerology,
should I share your attitude?

AFAIK, I don't think Mario has set his eyes on that goal. BTW, do you
believe that only religious beliefs can be irrational and dangerous?
What about the economic beliefs of, say, an Arun Shourie and a
Manmohan Singh?

Post by Sunith Velho
Should we also assume that people's private beliefs have no bearing on the
way they conduct themselves in public life?

If we take your argument to its logical end, we have to be policing
people's private beliefs too.

Post by Sunith Velho
Selma has rightly pointed out the perils of an approach that condones
illogical and sometimes dangerous beliefs in the name of being tolerant
towards other cultures and religions.

We are usually intolerant towards everyone but ourselves! --FN

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

Post by Sunith Velho

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

*Ban all forms of Religious teaching in state funded schools.

Why? Whether you like it or not (and whether you believe in a god or
not), religion is a reality we cannot wish away. It would make a lot
of sense to teach kids religion, not from a faith perspective, but
with a goal of understanding what it means to believe in one religion
in a pluralistic society. One where religion could be the basis for
the fault-lines developing for the major conflicts of the future.

Post by Sunith Velho
*Stop parading religious fiction as plausible scientifc theory in all
schools(private and public)

You're sounding very fundamentalist here. Some part of "scientific
theory" is also fiction, as time has shown. I think kids need to
encounter religion, and decide for themselves (as Kevin did it, late
in life) on whether to keep it or not.

Post by Sunith Velho
*Stop the using of schools(private and public) to brainwash young children
with teachings based on dogmas, instead teach them that nothing is beyond
the realm of reason.

One man's dogma is another man's science. For instance, neo-liberalism
as a dogma, Keynesian economic thought at another era, and so on.

Post by Sunith Velho
I am concerned about his beliefs because, my spam filters(now that they are
working) overflow every few days with his unsolicited mails. What he or his
kind are doing to the US school system is none of my concern. If ID was
being taught in Indian schools I would be concerned.

Yeah, since we cannot build sufficient computer techies (and you won't
support India Linux Users' Group-Goa too) it's time to call in the
thought police.

Post by Sunith Velho
Closer to home, what right wing religious zealots such as MM Joshi in India
are trying to do to our education system because of their private
(religious) beliefs is of great concern to me. Are you saying that I should
not be concerned when an HRD minister believes astrology is a science and
tries to force it into the science curriculum?

Mario is not any minister holding public office, as far as I know.
That is what raked off the topic. Now, you seem intent on shifting
goalposts, and widening the issues.

You have every right to "be concerned". Question is: what can you do
to challenge such issues? Are you in a position to take 90% of the
population, which believes in some kind of religion, along with you?
Or is your rhetoric so shrill that it is the religious extremists who
manage to win the day, with arguments like "pseudosecularism",
"abortion", "anti-national", and whatever else?

Post by Sunith Velho
If the next Economic Minsiter of India privately believes in numerology,
should I share your attitude?

AFAIK, I don't think Mario has set his eyes on that goal. BTW, do you
believe that only religious beliefs can be irrational and dangerous?
What about the economic beliefs of, say, an Arun Shourie and a
Manmohan Singh?

Post by Sunith Velho
Should we also assume that people's private beliefs have no bearing on the
way they conduct themselves in public life?

If we take your argument to its logical end, we have to be policing
people's private beliefs too.

Post by Sunith Velho
Selma has rightly pointed out the perils of an approach that condones
illogical and sometimes dangerous beliefs in the name of being tolerant
towards other cultures and religions.

We are usually intolerant towards everyone but ourselves! --FN

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

Post by Sunith Velho

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

*Ban all forms of Religious teaching in state funded schools.

Why? Whether you like it or not (and whether you believe in a god or
not), religion is a reality we cannot wish away. It would make a lot
of sense to teach kids religion, not from a faith perspective, but
with a goal of understanding what it means to believe in one religion
in a pluralistic society. One where religion could be the basis for
the fault-lines developing for the major conflicts of the future.

Post by Sunith Velho
*Stop parading religious fiction as plausible scientifc theory in all
schools(private and public)

You're sounding very fundamentalist here. Some part of "scientific
theory" is also fiction, as time has shown. I think kids need to
encounter religion, and decide for themselves (as Kevin did it, late
in life) on whether to keep it or not.

Post by Sunith Velho
*Stop the using of schools(private and public) to brainwash young children
with teachings based on dogmas, instead teach them that nothing is beyond
the realm of reason.

One man's dogma is another man's science. For instance, neo-liberalism
as a dogma, Keynesian economic thought at another era, and so on.

Post by Sunith Velho
I am concerned about his beliefs because, my spam filters(now that they are
working) overflow every few days with his unsolicited mails. What he or his
kind are doing to the US school system is none of my concern. If ID was
being taught in Indian schools I would be concerned.

Yeah, since we cannot build sufficient computer techies (and you won't
support India Linux Users' Group-Goa too) it's time to call in the
thought police.

Post by Sunith Velho
Closer to home, what right wing religious zealots such as MM Joshi in India
are trying to do to our education system because of their private
(religious) beliefs is of great concern to me. Are you saying that I should
not be concerned when an HRD minister believes astrology is a science and
tries to force it into the science curriculum?

Mario is not any minister holding public office, as far as I know.
That is what raked off the topic. Now, you seem intent on shifting
goalposts, and widening the issues.

You have every right to "be concerned". Question is: what can you do
to challenge such issues? Are you in a position to take 90% of the
population, which believes in some kind of religion, along with you?
Or is your rhetoric so shrill that it is the religious extremists who
manage to win the day, with arguments like "pseudosecularism",
"abortion", "anti-national", and whatever else?

Post by Sunith Velho
If the next Economic Minsiter of India privately believes in numerology,
should I share your attitude?

AFAIK, I don't think Mario has set his eyes on that goal. BTW, do you
believe that only religious beliefs can be irrational and dangerous?
What about the economic beliefs of, say, an Arun Shourie and a
Manmohan Singh?

Post by Sunith Velho
Should we also assume that people's private beliefs have no bearing on the
way they conduct themselves in public life?

If we take your argument to its logical end, we have to be policing
people's private beliefs too.

Post by Sunith Velho
Selma has rightly pointed out the perils of an approach that condones
illogical and sometimes dangerous beliefs in the name of being tolerant
towards other cultures and religions.

We are usually intolerant towards everyone but ourselves! --FN

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

Post by Sunith Velho

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

*Ban all forms of Religious teaching in state funded schools.

Why? Whether you like it or not (and whether you believe in a god or
not), religion is a reality we cannot wish away. It would make a lot
of sense to teach kids religion, not from a faith perspective, but
with a goal of understanding what it means to believe in one religion
in a pluralistic society. One where religion could be the basis for
the fault-lines developing for the major conflicts of the future.

Post by Sunith Velho
*Stop parading religious fiction as plausible scientifc theory in all
schools(private and public)

You're sounding very fundamentalist here. Some part of "scientific
theory" is also fiction, as time has shown. I think kids need to
encounter religion, and decide for themselves (as Kevin did it, late
in life) on whether to keep it or not.

Post by Sunith Velho
*Stop the using of schools(private and public) to brainwash young children
with teachings based on dogmas, instead teach them that nothing is beyond
the realm of reason.

One man's dogma is another man's science. For instance, neo-liberalism
as a dogma, Keynesian economic thought at another era, and so on.

Post by Sunith Velho
I am concerned about his beliefs because, my spam filters(now that they are
working) overflow every few days with his unsolicited mails. What he or his
kind are doing to the US school system is none of my concern. If ID was
being taught in Indian schools I would be concerned.

Yeah, since we cannot build sufficient computer techies (and you won't
support India Linux Users' Group-Goa too) it's time to call in the
thought police.

Post by Sunith Velho
Closer to home, what right wing religious zealots such as MM Joshi in India
are trying to do to our education system because of their private
(religious) beliefs is of great concern to me. Are you saying that I should
not be concerned when an HRD minister believes astrology is a science and
tries to force it into the science curriculum?

Mario is not any minister holding public office, as far as I know.
That is what raked off the topic. Now, you seem intent on shifting
goalposts, and widening the issues.

You have every right to "be concerned". Question is: what can you do
to challenge such issues? Are you in a position to take 90% of the
population, which believes in some kind of religion, along with you?
Or is your rhetoric so shrill that it is the religious extremists who
manage to win the day, with arguments like "pseudosecularism",
"abortion", "anti-national", and whatever else?

Post by Sunith Velho
If the next Economic Minsiter of India privately believes in numerology,
should I share your attitude?

AFAIK, I don't think Mario has set his eyes on that goal. BTW, do you
believe that only religious beliefs can be irrational and dangerous?
What about the economic beliefs of, say, an Arun Shourie and a
Manmohan Singh?

Post by Sunith Velho
Should we also assume that people's private beliefs have no bearing on the
way they conduct themselves in public life?

If we take your argument to its logical end, we have to be policing
people's private beliefs too.

Post by Sunith Velho
Selma has rightly pointed out the perils of an approach that condones
illogical and sometimes dangerous beliefs in the name of being tolerant
towards other cultures and religions.

We are usually intolerant towards everyone but ourselves! --FN

[Santosh Helekar]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
One man's dogma is another man's science. For
instance, neo-liberalism as a dogma, Keynesian
economic thought at another era, and so on.

What a horrible misunderstanding of science! No
science teacher has ever taught neo-liberalism or
Keynesian economic thought as science, anywhere. No
student of science would ever confuse them as having
anything do with science. Nonetheless, once again a
wholly contrived dose of confusion is being injected
into this issue as well.

A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.

Cheers,

Santosh

[angel]

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.
Orlando

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

Post by Santosh Helekar
What a horrible misunderstanding of science! No
science teacher has ever taught neo-liberalism or
Keynesian economic thought as science, anywhere. No
student of science would ever confuse them as having
anything do with science. Nonetheless, once again a
wholly contrived dose of confusion is being injected
into this issue as well.

Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the dismal science? Is the
world made up of natural sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough? We're (I am!) moving away from the
earlier point, which is already made. But this is interesting ground
too.

A nice essay: The Autistic Economist - Yale Economic Review - How and
why the dismal science embraces theory over reality.
http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/summer2006/autistic.php
OPENQUOTE: How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

* Two: One to change the bulb and one to assume the existence of a ladder.
* Eight: One to screw in the light bulb and seven to hold
everything else constant.
* None: They are all waiting for an invisible hand.

The caricature of the economist ? bumbling, impractical, disconnected
from the object of his work ? underpins a set of surprisingly
sophisticated criticisms leveled against the discipline, particularly
its realism, method, and ideology. None of these critiques is
particularly new, nor is any entirely unique to economics. But over
the last few years, they have been asserted against the dominant
economic pedagogy in general and the neoclassical framework in
particular with new force ? a force strong enough to be labeled a
movement. An amalgamation of unorthodox academics, discontented
students, and skeptical non-economists, this movement may not always
be unified in its diagnosis, but is certainly unified in their
discontent. If only because one of the many criticisms is of the
discipline's aloofness, the jokes as well as the criticisms should be
heard.... CLOSEQUOTE

[Aristo]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the dismal science? Is the
world made up of natural sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough? We're (I am!) moving away from the
earlier point, which is already made. But this is interesting ground
too.
A nice essay: The Autistic Economist - Yale Economic Review - How and
why the dismal science embraces theory over reality.

Aristo adds:

Spoken like a true Communist who doesn't understand legitimate Economics.

Anyways Frederick, there are 3 BROAD Branches of Knowledge, or
Disciplines, in which most sub disciplines may fall in. (Funny thing
Frederick, I couldn't find this on Wikipedia)
1. Arts & Philosophy (Fine Art, History, Theology, etc...)
2. Science & Applied Sciences (Natural Sciences, Medicine, Technology, etc...)
3. Business & Management (Accounting, Finance, Operations, etc...)

Economics is one sub-discipline that partly lies in all 3 Broad disciplines.

Personally, I'd like to think that Science (my first love) is what
drives individuals and the natural world around us, and Economics (my
second love) is what drives Society as a whole. Don't take me up on
that too seriously, its just my feeling without much profound thought.

Cheers,
Aristo.

[Aristo]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the dismal science? Is the
world made up of natural sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough? We're (I am!) moving away from the
earlier point, which is already made. But this is interesting ground
too.
A nice essay: The Autistic Economist - Yale Economic Review - How and
why the dismal science embraces theory over reality.

Aristo adds:

Spoken like a true Communist who doesn't understand legitimate Economics.

Anyways Frederick, there are 3 BROAD Branches of Knowledge, or
Disciplines, in which most sub disciplines may fall in. (Funny thing
Frederick, I couldn't find this on Wikipedia)
1. Arts & Philosophy (Fine Art, History, Theology, etc...)
2. Science & Applied Sciences (Natural Sciences, Medicine, Technology, etc...)
3. Business & Management (Accounting, Finance, Operations, etc...)

Economics is one sub-discipline that partly lies in all 3 Broad disciplines.

Personally, I'd like to think that Science (my first love) is what
drives individuals and the natural world around us, and Economics (my
second love) is what drives Society as a whole. Don't take me up on
that too seriously, its just my feeling without much profound thought.

Cheers,
Aristo.

[Aristo]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the dismal science? Is the
world made up of natural sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough? We're (I am!) moving away from the
earlier point, which is already made. But this is interesting ground
too.
A nice essay: The Autistic Economist - Yale Economic Review - How and
why the dismal science embraces theory over reality.

Aristo adds:

Spoken like a true Communist who doesn't understand legitimate Economics.

Anyways Frederick, there are 3 BROAD Branches of Knowledge, or
Disciplines, in which most sub disciplines may fall in. (Funny thing
Frederick, I couldn't find this on Wikipedia)
1. Arts & Philosophy (Fine Art, History, Theology, etc...)
2. Science & Applied Sciences (Natural Sciences, Medicine, Technology, etc...)
3. Business & Management (Accounting, Finance, Operations, etc...)

Economics is one sub-discipline that partly lies in all 3 Broad disciplines.

Personally, I'd like to think that Science (my first love) is what
drives individuals and the natural world around us, and Economics (my
second love) is what drives Society as a whole. Don't take me up on
that too seriously, its just my feeling without much profound thought.

Cheers,
Aristo.

[Aristo]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the dismal science? Is the
world made up of natural sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough? We're (I am!) moving away from the
earlier point, which is already made. But this is interesting ground
too.
A nice essay: The Autistic Economist - Yale Economic Review - How and
why the dismal science embraces theory over reality.

Aristo adds:

Spoken like a true Communist who doesn't understand legitimate Economics.

Anyways Frederick, there are 3 BROAD Branches of Knowledge, or
Disciplines, in which most sub disciplines may fall in. (Funny thing
Frederick, I couldn't find this on Wikipedia)
1. Arts & Philosophy (Fine Art, History, Theology, etc...)
2. Science & Applied Sciences (Natural Sciences, Medicine, Technology, etc...)
3. Business & Management (Accounting, Finance, Operations, etc...)

Economics is one sub-discipline that partly lies in all 3 Broad disciplines.

Personally, I'd like to think that Science (my first love) is what
drives individuals and the natural world around us, and Economics (my
second love) is what drives Society as a whole. Don't take me up on
that too seriously, its just my feeling without much profound thought.

Cheers,
Aristo.

[angel]

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.
Orlando

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

Post by Santosh Helekar
What a horrible misunderstanding of science! No
science teacher has ever taught neo-liberalism or
Keynesian economic thought as science, anywhere. No
student of science would ever confuse them as having
anything do with science. Nonetheless, once again a
wholly contrived dose of confusion is being injected
into this issue as well.

Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the dismal science? Is the
world made up of natural sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough? We're (I am!) moving away from the
earlier point, which is already made. But this is interesting ground
too.

A nice essay: The Autistic Economist - Yale Economic Review - How and
why the dismal science embraces theory over reality.
http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/summer2006/autistic.php
OPENQUOTE: How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

* Two: One to change the bulb and one to assume the existence of a ladder.
* Eight: One to screw in the light bulb and seven to hold
everything else constant.
* None: They are all waiting for an invisible hand.

The caricature of the economist ? bumbling, impractical, disconnected
from the object of his work ? underpins a set of surprisingly
sophisticated criticisms leveled against the discipline, particularly
its realism, method, and ideology. None of these critiques is
particularly new, nor is any entirely unique to economics. But over
the last few years, they have been asserted against the dominant
economic pedagogy in general and the neoclassical framework in
particular with new force ? a force strong enough to be labeled a
movement. An amalgamation of unorthodox academics, discontented
students, and skeptical non-economists, this movement may not always
be unified in its diagnosis, but is certainly unified in their
discontent. If only because one of the many criticisms is of the
discipline's aloofness, the jokes as well as the criticisms should be
heard.... CLOSEQUOTE

[angel]

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.
Orlando

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

Post by Santosh Helekar
What a horrible misunderstanding of science! No
science teacher has ever taught neo-liberalism or
Keynesian economic thought as science, anywhere. No
student of science would ever confuse them as having
anything do with science. Nonetheless, once again a
wholly contrived dose of confusion is being injected
into this issue as well.

Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the dismal science? Is the
world made up of natural sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough? We're (I am!) moving away from the
earlier point, which is already made. But this is interesting ground
too.

A nice essay: The Autistic Economist - Yale Economic Review - How and
why the dismal science embraces theory over reality.
http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/summer2006/autistic.php
OPENQUOTE: How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

* Two: One to change the bulb and one to assume the existence of a ladder.
* Eight: One to screw in the light bulb and seven to hold
everything else constant.
* None: They are all waiting for an invisible hand.

The caricature of the economist ? bumbling, impractical, disconnected
from the object of his work ? underpins a set of surprisingly
sophisticated criticisms leveled against the discipline, particularly
its realism, method, and ideology. None of these critiques is
particularly new, nor is any entirely unique to economics. But over
the last few years, they have been asserted against the dominant
economic pedagogy in general and the neoclassical framework in
particular with new force ? a force strong enough to be labeled a
movement. An amalgamation of unorthodox academics, discontented
students, and skeptical non-economists, this movement may not always
be unified in its diagnosis, but is certainly unified in their
discontent. If only because one of the many criticisms is of the
discipline's aloofness, the jokes as well as the criticisms should be
heard.... CLOSEQUOTE

[angel]

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.
Orlando

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

Post by Santosh Helekar
What a horrible misunderstanding of science! No
science teacher has ever taught neo-liberalism or
Keynesian economic thought as science, anywhere. No
student of science would ever confuse them as having
anything do with science. Nonetheless, once again a
wholly contrived dose of confusion is being injected
into this issue as well.

Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the dismal science? Is the
world made up of natural sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough? We're (I am!) moving away from the
earlier point, which is already made. But this is interesting ground
too.

A nice essay: The Autistic Economist - Yale Economic Review - How and
why the dismal science embraces theory over reality.
http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/summer2006/autistic.php
OPENQUOTE: How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

* Two: One to change the bulb and one to assume the existence of a ladder.
* Eight: One to screw in the light bulb and seven to hold
everything else constant.
* None: They are all waiting for an invisible hand.

The caricature of the economist ? bumbling, impractical, disconnected
from the object of his work ? underpins a set of surprisingly
sophisticated criticisms leveled against the discipline, particularly
its realism, method, and ideology. None of these critiques is
particularly new, nor is any entirely unique to economics. But over
the last few years, they have been asserted against the dominant
economic pedagogy in general and the neoclassical framework in
particular with new force ? a force strong enough to be labeled a
movement. An amalgamation of unorthodox academics, discontented
students, and skeptical non-economists, this movement may not always
be unified in its diagnosis, but is certainly unified in their
discontent. If only because one of the many criticisms is of the
discipline's aloofness, the jokes as well as the criticisms should be
heard.... CLOSEQUOTE

[Santosh Helekar]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the
dismal science? Is the world made up of natural
sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough?

To muck things up further, please note that
neo-liberalism and Keynesian economic thought, which
were posited as scientific theories in the earlier
bout of confusion, have now nicely morphed into
economics and social sciences in general, pitted
against natural sciences.

The simple truth is that the subject of this thread,
namely the theory of evolution, is taught in a science
class in high schools and in the science stream in
colleges. Science used generically in this case refers
to natural sciences. It certainly does not refer to
neo-liberalism and Keynesian economics. It also does
not refer to Economics and Social Sciences in general.
There are sub-branches of Economics, History,
Archeology, Anthropology and Sociology that use the
scientific method, and can be legitimately categorized
under applied sciences.

But more importantly if a student is asked to name a
scientific theory, he/she would not name
neo-liberalism or Keynesian economics, unless he is
ignorant or he wants to confuse people into believing
that every school of thought is some kind of science.

People also use terms such as Christian science,
Scientology, Biblical science, Creation science, Vedic
science, Quranic science, Astrological science,
Pseudoscience, etc. It would be interesting to know if
the type of postmodernist confusion that is being
advocated in the above-referenced post, and the one
before it, would also include these entities under its
mishmashed definition of science or scientific theory.

Cheers,

Santosh

[CORNEL DACOSTA]

Hi Santosh

This is to say that I agree with you strongly. I also want to add that in
society we tend to have education that is intended to question things and
enlighten us away from 'primitive' thought. Unfortunately, we also have
indoctrination (most often at an early age to capture adherents for life)
via religion that contrasts significantly from the aim of education.
Unfortunately too, some cannot tell the difference or choose not to.

I am sure I will get some stick for saying this but I welcome it in the
interests of discourse.
Cornel

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.
Orlando

[Jerry Fernandes]

Hello Orlando,
Can u be more specific when you say that Darwanian Evolution was Religion
and not science?
According to dictionary, evolution is a scientific idea that plants and
animals develope and change gradually over a long period of time. As far as
I understood Darwanian Evolution, He said Man evolved from Primates. I
surely would like to know what you meant.

Cheers

Jerry Fernandes

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.

Orlando

[angel]

Can u be more specific when you say that Darwinian Evolution was Religion
and not science?

Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California calls it is a World view of
our culture, a view of the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially sponsored creation story
of our culture" (emphasis are mine)

I believe it has managed to survive only by techniques of rethoric and
arguments not real sience, and sometimes even fraudaulent generalisations. I
call this Darwinian apologetics. Hence my view that there is no science
here, it is a religion.

According to dictionary, evolution is a scientific idea that plants and
animals develope and change >radually over a long period of time. As far as
I understood Darwanian Evolution, He said Man evolved >from Primates. I
surely would like to know what you meant.

There is no proof there Man has evolved from primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.

Orlando

[angel]

Can u be more specific when you say that Darwinian Evolution was Religion
and not science?

Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California calls it is a World view of
our culture, a view of the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially sponsored creation story
of our culture" (emphasis are mine)

I believe it has managed to survive only by techniques of rethoric and
arguments not real sience, and sometimes even fraudaulent generalisations. I
call this Darwinian apologetics. Hence my view that there is no science
here, it is a religion.

According to dictionary, evolution is a scientific idea that plants and
animals develope and change >radually over a long period of time. As far as
I understood Darwanian Evolution, He said Man evolved >from Primates. I
surely would like to know what you meant.

There is no proof there Man has evolved from primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.

Orlando

[angel]

Can u be more specific when you say that Darwinian Evolution was Religion
and not science?

Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California calls it is a World view of
our culture, a view of the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially sponsored creation story
of our culture" (emphasis are mine)

I believe it has managed to survive only by techniques of rethoric and
arguments not real sience, and sometimes even fraudaulent generalisations. I
call this Darwinian apologetics. Hence my view that there is no science
here, it is a religion.

According to dictionary, evolution is a scientific idea that plants and
animals develope and change >radually over a long period of time. As far as
I understood Darwanian Evolution, He said Man evolved >from Primates. I
surely would like to know what you meant.

There is no proof there Man has evolved from primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.

Orlando

[angel]

Can u be more specific when you say that Darwinian Evolution was Religion
and not science?

Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California calls it is a World view of
our culture, a view of the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially sponsored creation story
of our culture" (emphasis are mine)

I believe it has managed to survive only by techniques of rethoric and
arguments not real sience, and sometimes even fraudaulent generalisations. I
call this Darwinian apologetics. Hence my view that there is no science
here, it is a religion.

According to dictionary, evolution is a scientific idea that plants and
animals develope and change >radually over a long period of time. As far as
I understood Darwanian Evolution, He said Man evolved >from Primates. I
surely would like to know what you meant.

There is no proof there Man has evolved from primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.

Orlando

[Kevin Saldanha]

Dear Santosh, Fredrick and others,

To put a Canadian perspective on this interesting thread, we have
publicly funded Catholic schools that purport to follow the Provincial
curriculum guidelines for science subjects in high school which says,
among other things of the objectives of module on Evolution in Grade
12 science "By the end of this course, students will: *outline
evidence and arguments pertaining to the origin, development, and
diversity of living organisms on Earth (e.g., evaluate current
evidence that supports the theory of evolution and that feeds the
debate on gradualism and punctuated equilibrium);"
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science1112curr.pdf

Where does Adam and Eve fit in? How can the most important scientific
theory of how we got here be taught with any integrity by an
institution that all but denies the basics of Evolution?

This query was recently submitted as a grant proposal to the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for funding to
study the effect of including Intelligent Design in high school
teaching. The evaluation committee, suffering from the same delusions
that were to be studied, TURNED DOWN THE REQUEST, saying, in effect,
that Intelligent Design was a valid theory!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Alters

If this is the state of education in Canada, we deserve a generation
of God-fearing lemmings.

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.

===
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution


People also use terms such as Christian science,
Scientology, Biblical science, Creation science, Vedic
science, Quranic science, Astrological science,
Pseudoscience, etc. It would be interesting to know if
the type of postmodernist confusion that is being
advocated in the above-referenced post, and the one
before it, would also include these entities under its
mishmashed definition of science or scientific theory.

Cheers,

Santosh

[Santosh Helekar]

Post by angel
Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California
calls it is a World view of our culture, a view of
the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially
sponsored creation story of our culture" (emphasis
are mine)

The above post has got to be simply an extended flame
bait. It is hard to imagine anybody would seriously
cite a creationist lawyer's opinion and his own
home-baked beliefs as an argument against an
established scientific principle, a biological fact
that is supported by overwhelming evidence.

As far as human evolution is concerned, one of the
most compelling pieces of recent evidence in favor of
the descent of humans from the common ancestor of
non-human primates, namely chimpanzees and bonobos, is
the 98% structural similarity of DNA between the three
species of primates.

What is Phillip Johnson's abstract legal argument
against that physical evidence?

Cheers,

Santosh

Post by angel
I believe it has managed to survive only by
techniques of rethoric and
arguments not real sience, and sometimes even
fraudaulent generalisations. I
call this Darwinian apologetics. Hence my view that
there is no science
here, it is a religion.
.............................................
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a
period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other
factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new
species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.
Orlando

[angel]

I am surprised that you chose the 98% similarity between chimp and bono
species to make your point, why not Homology or Embryology (Haeckels embryos
in particular?) are they dead ends so far as Darwinism are concerned? My
take is you are repeating Berra's Blunder. It is sad when one has to take
the stand that 'it has all been explained before' or like in your case 'is
an established scientific principal' why not simply exchange views?

I do not see any "compelling pieces of evidence in favor of descent of
humans from common ancestor" with the similarity in genes. If you are
assuming as neo-Darwinism does, that we are what we are because of our
genes, then you are saying that the amazing difference between us and the
other primates is because of the 2% dissimilar genes we carry. The 98% of
the common genes happen to be the so called body-building genes, in my
opinion this similarity is just as compatible with COMMON DESIGN as it might
be with common ancestry.

To me the evolutionary icons, (one of which we just discussed above) are not
persuasive anymore, the creationist lawyer's incisive insights are one of
the reason for the skepticism with which I look at Darwinism today. There
are others too like Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, James M Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are interested in the debate to
look these authors up.

I am enjoying this discussion.
Orlando

Post by Santosh Helekar

Post by angel
Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California
calls it is a World view of our culture, a view of
the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially
sponsored creation story of our culture" (emphasis
are mine)

The above post has got to be simply an extended flame
bait. It is hard to imagine anybody would seriously
cite a creationist lawyer's opinion and his own
home-baked beliefs as an argument against an
established scientific principle, a biological fact
that is supported by overwhelming evidence.
As far as human evolution is concerned, one of the
most compelling pieces of recent evidence in favor of
the descent of humans from the common ancestor of
non-human primates, namely chimpanzees and bonobos, is
the 98% structural similarity of DNA between the three
species of primates.
What is Phillip Johnson's abstract legal argument
against that physical evidence?

[angel]

I am surprised that you chose the 98% similarity between chimp and bono
species to make your point, why not Homology or Embryology (Haeckels embryos
in particular?) are they dead ends so far as Darwinism are concerned? My
take is you are repeating Berra's Blunder. It is sad when one has to take
the stand that 'it has all been explained before' or like in your case 'is
an established scientific principal' why not simply exchange views?

I do not see any "compelling pieces of evidence in favor of descent of
humans from common ancestor" with the similarity in genes. If you are
assuming as neo-Darwinism does, that we are what we are because of our
genes, then you are saying that the amazing difference between us and the
other primates is because of the 2% dissimilar genes we carry. The 98% of
the common genes happen to be the so called body-building genes, in my
opinion this similarity is just as compatible with COMMON DESIGN as it might
be with common ancestry.

To me the evolutionary icons, (one of which we just discussed above) are not
persuasive anymore, the creationist lawyer's incisive insights are one of
the reason for the skepticism with which I look at Darwinism today. There
are others too like Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, James M Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are interested in the debate to
look these authors up.

I am enjoying this discussion.
Orlando

Post by Santosh Helekar

Post by angel
Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California
calls it is a World view of our culture, a view of
the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially
sponsored creation story of our culture" (emphasis
are mine)

The above post has got to be simply an extended flame
bait. It is hard to imagine anybody would seriously
cite a creationist lawyer's opinion and his own
home-baked beliefs as an argument against an
established scientific principle, a biological fact
that is supported by overwhelming evidence.
As far as human evolution is concerned, one of the
most compelling pieces of recent evidence in favor of
the descent of humans from the common ancestor of
non-human primates, namely chimpanzees and bonobos, is
the 98% structural similarity of DNA between the three
species of primates.
What is Phillip Johnson's abstract legal argument
against that physical evidence?

[angel]

I am surprised that you chose the 98% similarity between chimp and bono
species to make your point, why not Homology or Embryology (Haeckels embryos
in particular?) are they dead ends so far as Darwinism are concerned? My
take is you are repeating Berra's Blunder. It is sad when one has to take
the stand that 'it has all been explained before' or like in your case 'is
an established scientific principal' why not simply exchange views?

I do not see any "compelling pieces of evidence in favor of descent of
humans from common ancestor" with the similarity in genes. If you are
assuming as neo-Darwinism does, that we are what we are because of our
genes, then you are saying that the amazing difference between us and the
other primates is because of the 2% dissimilar genes we carry. The 98% of
the common genes happen to be the so called body-building genes, in my
opinion this similarity is just as compatible with COMMON DESIGN as it might
be with common ancestry.

To me the evolutionary icons, (one of which we just discussed above) are not
persuasive anymore, the creationist lawyer's incisive insights are one of
the reason for the skepticism with which I look at Darwinism today. There
are others too like Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, James M Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are interested in the debate to
look these authors up.

I am enjoying this discussion.
Orlando

Post by Santosh Helekar

Post by angel
Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California
calls it is a World view of our culture, a view of
the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially
sponsored creation story of our culture" (emphasis
are mine)

The above post has got to be simply an extended flame
bait. It is hard to imagine anybody would seriously
cite a creationist lawyer's opinion and his own
home-baked beliefs as an argument against an
established scientific principle, a biological fact
that is supported by overwhelming evidence.
As far as human evolution is concerned, one of the
most compelling pieces of recent evidence in favor of
the descent of humans from the common ancestor of
non-human primates, namely chimpanzees and bonobos, is
the 98% structural similarity of DNA between the three
species of primates.
What is Phillip Johnson's abstract legal argument
against that physical evidence?

[Mervyn Lobo]

Post by angel
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no proof of any species
evolving into another over a period of time.
However adaption to climatic changes and scores of >

other factors, which cause variations within

Post by angel
species without creating a new species per say, is >

sold to us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.



Orlando,
I am not too sure if man has evolved from primates or
if that is the direction man is going. However, I am
quite convinced that angels have morphed from fairies.
Fairies being male angels.

Since we are on this subject, if anyone is interested,
I can prove that the earth is the centre of the
universe. And yes, don't ask unless you are prepared
to be shocked!

Lobowitz.
(Have dogs evolved from wolfs?)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Carvalho]

Post by angel
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a
period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other
factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new
species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.
Orlando

----------------------------------------

The debate over creationism v/s evolution, is not
contingent on evolution being a plausible theory (for
which by the way there is plenty of evidence) but
rather on creationism being an untenable one.

Science has a built-in self-correcting mechanism based
on peer reviews and re-evaluation of hypotesis when
more evidence comes into play. Religion is not held to
such stringent standards, which is fine if one is in
the business of hypotheses pertaining to the soul.
However theories and ideology pertaining to the
creation and evolution of the world, the psychology of
the human mind, the ailments of the human body, the
judicial system and politics are best left to their
respective disciplines. Religion should take the moral
leadership and acknowledge that it simply does not
have any authority on these subjects. That would be
the most ethical and honest thing to do.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants to? Why should we
try to convince him otherwise? I hope his beliefs make him a better
person... that's all that matters. I wouldn't want anyone judging the
rightness (or wrongness) of my own beliefs... as long as it doesn't
harm them in any way. FN

Post by Carvalho
The debate over creationism v/s evolution, is not
contingent on evolution being a plausible theory (for
which by the way there is plenty of evidence) but
rather on creationism being an untenable one....

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants to? Why should we
try to convince him otherwise? I hope his beliefs make him a better
person... that's all that matters. I wouldn't want anyone judging the
rightness (or wrongness) of my own beliefs... as long as it doesn't
harm them in any way. FN

Post by Carvalho
The debate over creationism v/s evolution, is not
contingent on evolution being a plausible theory (for
which by the way there is plenty of evidence) but
rather on creationism being an untenable one....

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants to? Why should we
try to convince him otherwise? I hope his beliefs make him a better
person... that's all that matters. I wouldn't want anyone judging the
rightness (or wrongness) of my own beliefs... as long as it doesn't
harm them in any way. FN

Post by Carvalho
The debate over creationism v/s evolution, is not
contingent on evolution being a plausible theory (for
which by the way there is plenty of evidence) but
rather on creationism being an untenable one....

[Santosh Helekar]

What is wrong with stating facts that contradict
someone's beliefs?

What is wrong with attempting to convince someone that
he/she is mistaken?

What is wrong with informing other readers that what
they read on Goanet is not true?

What is wrong with wanting to find out if our beliefs
are right or wrong?

What is wrong with having intellectual curiosity?

What is wrong with trying to educate ourselves?

Cheers,

Santosh

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we
try to convince him otherwise? I hope his beliefs
make him a better
person... that's all that matters. I wouldn't want
anyone judging the
rightness (or wrongness) of my own beliefs... as
long as it doesn't
harm them in any way. FN

[Santosh Helekar]

Post by angel
I am surprised that you chose the 98% similarity
between chimp and bono species to make your point,
why not Homology or Embryology (Haeckels embryos
in particular?) are they dead ends so far as

Darwinism >are concerned?
I know that Orlando does not believe what he is
writing in this thread, unless he has had a recent
conversion that I don't know about. He is merely
playing the devil's advocate, or more correctly, a
creator/designer god's advocate here.

The structural similarity in the DNA is the most
powerful means of ascertaining the relatedness between
individuals through direct or common descent. It is
used to establish paternity, maternity, ancestry and
geneology in medicine and the courtroom. It is also
shown to be the basis of the observed homology at the
anatomical, embryological, physiological and cellular
level.

An established scientific principle is a complete
rational explanation for which the evidence is
overwhelming. The theory of evolution by natural
selection satisfies this definition in all respects.

First, it is a complete rational explanation because
it provides a specific plausible mechanism that
explains the diversity and complexity of the living
world, and the apparent structural and functional
similarities between different species. It is a
scientific theory because it is testable, and because
it is consistent with all other established scientific
principles such as the laws of Physics and Chemistry.
A testable theory is one which makes specific
predictions that can be verified or falsified by
observation and experiment. The following predictions
of the theory of evolution have been irrefutably
verified:

1. Living species have changed in complexity and
diversity in a graded manner over the last 4 billion
years.

2. Organisms show random variations in structure and
function in each generation.

3. The variations are inherited.

4. A specific common molecular genetic mechanism
explains both the variations and their inheritance.

5. The inherited variations that offer an advantage in
a given environment become more common in each
successive generation as long as the environment
remains similar. Those that offer a disadvantage are
eliminated. They may be preserved in a different
environment, however. Those variations that are
indifferent do not change in frequency in the general
population. However, they may become common or
disappear if a small population became geographically
isolated.

6. The molecular genetic differences between any two
species depend precisely on when in the history of
this planet their lineages separated from each other
(the lineages and point of divergence determined
independently by fossil evidence). The greater the
amount of difference the longer is the temporal
distance of separation.

7. The structures and mechanisms found in all species
are merely functional under a given environment. They
are not optimally efficient in many cases. There are
also many useless or non-functional structures and
mechanisms.

8. Structures and mechanisms used for one purpose in
an organism is used in an intermediate or incomplete
form in another organism sharing a common ancestral
lineage. There are non-functional eyes, components of
the bacterial flagellum, steps in the blood clotting
mechanisms, etc used for other purposes in other
organisms.

Yes, there are incomplete mouse traps in biology. The
creationist Michael Behe has simply written a book
full of factual errors. So have the others. For an
exposition of the factual misinformation and erroneous
speculations in their writings, please read the books
and articles of evolutionary biologists Ken Miller and
Massimo Pigliuci, the Nobel laureate Russell Doolittle
(who discovered the blood clotting mechanism) and the
evolutionary theorist Robert Pennock.

The religious concept of creationism and its modern
version, intelligent design, do not provide a specific
plausible mechanism to explain all the features of
Biology listed above. The undefined concept of a
creator or designer is not a testable hypothesis. Its
only semblance of a prediction, namely that there is a
such a creator/designer cannot be objectively verified
or falsified. It only raises more unanswered
questions:

What is the physical nature of this creator/designer?
How did it come into being fully formed with the
ability to design and create?
What is the specific mechanism that it uses to design
and create?
Why and how does it make mistakes in designing and
creating?
Why did it not design and create all species at once?
Why did it have to stagger them over 4 billion years?
Why did it not create humans before creating
unicellular organisms?

So before proposing common design as an explanation
for the 98% similarity between chimp and human DNA,
all of the above questions need to be answered, and
objective evidence obtained in support of at least
some of those answers.

Now regarding the abstract legal and philosophical
arguments of religious creationists cited below,
please see the following link for the most recent
comprehensive court ruling that points out the gaping
flaws and falsehoods in them, and determines that
intelligent design is an unscientific belief:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Cheers,

Santosh

Post by angel
My take is you are repeating Berra's Blunder. It is
sad when one has to take the stand that 'it has all
been explained before' or like in your case 'is
an established scientific principal' why not simply
exchange views?
I do not see any "compelling pieces of evidence in
favor of descent of
humans from common ancestor" with the similarity in
genes. If you are
assuming as neo-Darwinism does, that we are what we
are because of our
genes, then you are saying that the amazing
difference between us and the
other primates is because of the 2% dissimilar genes
we carry. The 98% of
the common genes happen to be the so called
body-building genes, in my
opinion this similarity is just as compatible with
COMMON DESIGN as it might
be with common ancestry.
To me the evolutionary icons, (one of which we just
discussed above) are not
persuasive anymore, the creationist lawyer's
incisive insights are one of
the reason for the skepticism with which I look at
Darwinism today. There
are others too like Michael Behe, William A.
Dembski, James M Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are
interested in the debate to
look these authors up.

[Carvalho]

Excellent post Santosh! Enjoyed reading it.

selma

Post by Santosh Helekar
The structural similarity in the DNA is the most
powerful means of ascertaining the relatedness
between
individuals through direct or common descent.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

[Sunith D Velho]

Most of the mentioned authors have only the 'logic' of irreducible
complexity to suport their arguments and are thus rejected by
mainstream science.

This argument generally finds favour with those who do not understand
natural selection or who think evolution is pure 'chance'.

It is further boosted because it is a pefect fit with what most people
are brainwashed with as children i.e. if you can't explain something,
it must be God's work.

If there truly exists anything irreducibly complex in nature, then what
about the entity that designed it. Wouldn't the same 'logic' apply to
that entity?

Or are logic and science to be selectively applied?

Sunith Velho

There are others too like Michael Behe, William A. >Dembski, James M
Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are interested in >the debate to
look these authors up.

[Mervyn Lobo]

"Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we try to convince him otherwise?
I hope his beliefs make him a better person...
that's all that matters. I wouldn't want anyone
judging the rightness (or wrongness) of my own
beliefs... as long as it doesn't harm them in any
way.

FN,
There are beliefs and then there is knowledge. Here in
Canada there are people who refuse to accept blood
transfusions because of their religious beliefs. I
have no problems with such people who, essentially,
remove themselves from the gene pool because of their
beliefs. However, the same person becomes a problem to
society when he also insists that his infant child
should not receive a blood transfusion, one that would
save the infants life.

I think you will agree with me that this is an example
of when knowledge has to trump beliefs.

Mervyn3.0

"All truth passes through three stages. First it is
ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it
is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer -



Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca

[Alfred de Tavares]

From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>
Reply-To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:42:09 -0400 (EDT)
"Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we try to convince him otherwise?
I hope his beliefs make him a better person...
that's all that matters.

Rico, How bad is the guy in prospect? god forfend worse than I.

&, would you endeavour to turn him as good as you? Better? On par?

Chacha

FN,
There are beliefs and then there is knowledge. Here in
Canada there are people who refuse to accept blood
transfusions because of their religious beliefs. I
have no problems with such people who, essentially,
remove themselves from the gene pool because of their
beliefs. However, the same person becomes a problem to
society when he also insists that his infant child
should not receive a blood transfusion, one that would
save the infants life.
I think you will agree with me that this is an example
of when knowledge has to trump beliefs.
Mervyn3.0
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is
ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it
is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer -
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at
http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
-------------------------------------------------------
Goanet recommends, and is proud to be associated with,
'Domnic's Goa' - A nostalgic romp through a bygone era.
This book is the perfect gift for any Goan, or anyone
wanting to understand Goa. Distributed locally by
Broadway, near Caculo Island, Panjim & internationally
by OtherIndiaBookStore.Com. For trade enquiries contact
cecilpinto at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Bosco D'Mello]

And while the saga of Creation vs Evolution continues here on Goanet, I'd
like to point out that Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and
an inspiration to Charles Darwin is being toasted by his fellow Swedes
marking the 300th anniversary of his birth tomorrow - May 23/07.

Tercentenary celebrations run all week in the hallowed university town of
Uppsala.

http://globecareers.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20070519/LINNAEUS19?section=Science

- Bosco

[Alfred de Tavares]

Bosco,

I shook hands with the Emperorof Japan and his lady, visiting
Sweden in honnour of Linnea.

I wish i had requested Venantius Pinto, conversant in their language
for a suitable salutation.

I don?t think the opportunity will arise again.

AT

From: "Bosco D'Mello" <bospam at canada.com>
Reply-To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 00:04:22 -0400
And while the saga of Creation vs Evolution continues here on Goanet, I'd
like to point out that Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and
an inspiration to Charles Darwin is being toasted by his fellow Swedes
marking the 300th anniversary of his birth tomorrow - May 23/07.
Tercentenary celebrations run all week in the hallowed university town of
Uppsala.
http://globecareers.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20070519/LINNAEUS19?section=Science
- Bosco
-------------------------------------------------------
Goanet recommends, and is proud to be associated with,
'Domnic's Goa' - A nostalgic romp through a bygone era.
This book is the perfect gift for any Goan, or anyone
wanting to understand Goa. Distributed locally by
Broadway, near Caculo Island, Panjim & internationally
by OtherIndiaBookStore.Com. For trade enquiries contact
cecilpinto at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Arnold Noronha]

On 13 May 2007 : "Sunith Velho" <sunith_v at rediffmail.com> in response to
Frederick Noronha's earlier post wrote:
Re: [Goanet] Tolerating Creationism

So, as far as these creationists don't block you on
believing what you want, why should you evolutionists >deny them of the
same?

Sunith responds:
Because creationism (or the Catholic version of it) is trying to creep
its
way into schools all over the world in the guise of a legitimate
scientific
theory and is being used to brainwash young children.

There is as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the
theory
that years ago a galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion
beings from an overcrowded corner of the universe, dumping them on Earth
before killing them with nuclear bombs(which is what Scientologists
believe!).

Sunith

Hello Fred and Sunith:
Your intense discourse on Mankind's Origins seems to have reached an
impasse. Apparently, the controversy surrounding this enigmatic scientific
subject with religious overtones or vice-versa,( as you like it) will not
be settled until Hell freeses over. Hence to you and like-minded Juggernauts
of Goanet engaged in this debate, I proffer the following verse :

Choosing between Creationism and Evolution
What?s the most rational and moral solution
To terminate ?nip and tuck? strife and elocution?
Without a face-saving and retarding dilution
Or the bathos of ravaging intellectual pollution

Scrubbing the intelligent with enlightening ablution
Could we develop an amalgamated convolution?
forgoing predilection, passion and seminal intuition
Ere mankind reaches the bloodshed of a revolution
Requiring a Higher Power(s)' stern interlocution

But for Heaven?s sake why have all this bitter consternation
Twixt savants for their opposing theories seeking justification
In the search for our Origins with scrutiny and elaboration
That seems to lead to Oblivion with internecine vilification
When what?s important is not our Origins but our Destination

Cheers
Arnold

_________________________________________________________________
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You?ll love Windows Live
Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

So is this an issue of:

* Religious agendas being pushed in State-funded schools (in which
case, can't people
believe what they want to, at the private level, s long as it
doesn't hurt the wider society)
* Falsehood being pushed over "truth" (who decides in a world where that humble
George Bush denies the reality of global warming)?
* What Catholics (or other creationists) believe and teach in their
own institutions?
(Why should we bother, if they do it on their own moolah?) Or are we like the
RSS, deciding what should be the syllabi of Madrasas, and laying it down for
others?
* What you want other people to believe, in a world which is
increasingly fighting
diversity, and it's becoming increasingly clear that we lack common
understandings
and shared approaches?

So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

May I remind you that the issue came up over what "Mario's camp"
believes, chooses to believe, or is seen to believe by our friend
Selma. It was not about what was being taught in schools in the US.
So couldn't someone accuse us of attempting to shift the goalposts?

I have no problem with what Mario believes... (that's his problem).
Even though I don't agree with him.

Please tell me why I should be concerned about his belief in
Creationism (assuming that is his belief). Thanks and regards, FN

PS: Arnold, your poem was very cool... and your talent in verse,
awesome (as they would say in your part of the world, where they also
teach Creationism to kids in school).

Let's also not forget that in Mario's camp, most
people believe that the world was created in 6 days,
based on that indisputable authority on scientific
reasoning known as the Bible. :-)
On 13 May 2007 : "Sunith Velho" <sunith_v at rediffmail.com> in response to
Re: [Goanet] Tolerating Creationism

So, as far as these creationists don't block you on
believing what you want, why should you evolutionists >deny them of the
same?

Because creationism (or the Catholic version of it) is trying to creep
its
way into schools all over the world in the guise of a legitimate
scientific
theory and is being used to brainwash young children.
There is as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the
theory
that years ago a galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion
beings from an overcrowded corner of the universe, dumping them on Earth
before killing them with nuclear bombs(which is what Scientologists
believe!).
Sunith

[Gabe Menezes]

........................................But for Heaven's sake why have
all this bitter consternation
Twixt savants for their opposing theories seeking justification
In the search for our Origins ..........................

Post by Arnold Noronha
Cheers
Arnold

Comment: There is only one Savant on his Goanet site !

[Carvalho]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"
<fredericknoronha at gmail.com> wrote:

* What Catholics (or other creationists) believe and

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
teach in their
own institutions?
(Why should we bother, if they do it on their own
moolah?) Or are we like the
RSS, deciding what should be the syllabi of
Madrasas, and laying it down for
others?

-------------------------------
Dear Frederick,

The RSS is not an elected body representative of the
people and hence it has no jurisdiction in India.
However, the government should definitely be looking
into what is taught in schools.

Isn't it a fact that students who come from madrasas
fair poorly at higher institutes of learning in India,
not to mention in the work-place? Hence, aren't we
doing a dis-service to young children who have no
choice in what their parents choose as their
instruction?

If someone wants to learn classical Islamic
literature, or the trails of Moses and Abraham, or the
medicinal merits of ayurveda, the benefits of yoga
breathing or the joys of stamp collecting, they are
free to do so at their own leisure but school
curriculum should be secular in all respects.

Incase you are going to ask if I will apply the same
standards to Catholic schools (also known as covent
schools), the reason they do well in India is because
their curriculum is secular and they offer an A-grade
education in all respects.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

[Sunith Velho]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

My demands are as follows:
*Ban all forms of Religious teaching in state funded schools.
*Stop parading religious fiction as plausible scientifc theory in all
schools(private and public)
*Stop the using of schools(private and public) to brainwash young children
with teachings based on dogmas, instead teach them that nothing is beyond
the realm of reason.

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
I have no problem with what Mario believes... (that's >>his problem).Even
though I don't agree with him.Please tell me why I should be concerned
about his belief....

I am concerned about his beliefs because, my spam filters(now that they are
working) overflow every few days with his unsolicited mails. What he or his
kind are doing to the US school system is none of my concern. If ID was
being taught in Indian schools I would be concerned.

Closer to home, what right wing religious zealots such as MM Joshi in India
are trying to do to our education system because of their private
(religious) beliefs is of great concern to me. Are you saying that I should
not be concerned when an HRD minister believes astrology is a science and
tries to force it into the science curriculum?

If the next Economic Minsiter of India privately believes in numerology,
should I share your attitude?

Should we also assume that people's private beliefs have no bearing on the
way they conduct themselves in public life?

Selma has rightly pointed out the perils of an approach that condones
illogical and sometimes dangerous beliefs in the name of being tolerant
towards other cultures and religions.

Sunith

[Santosh Helekar]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
One man's dogma is another man's science. For
instance, neo-liberalism as a dogma, Keynesian
economic thought at another era, and so on.

What a horrible misunderstanding of science! No
science teacher has ever taught neo-liberalism or
Keynesian economic thought as science, anywhere. No
student of science would ever confuse them as having
anything do with science. Nonetheless, once again a
wholly contrived dose of confusion is being injected
into this issue as well.

A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.

Cheers,

Santosh

[Santosh Helekar]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the
dismal science? Is the world made up of natural
sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough?

To muck things up further, please note that
neo-liberalism and Keynesian economic thought, which
were posited as scientific theories in the earlier
bout of confusion, have now nicely morphed into
economics and social sciences in general, pitted
against natural sciences.

The simple truth is that the subject of this thread,
namely the theory of evolution, is taught in a science
class in high schools and in the science stream in
colleges. Science used generically in this case refers
to natural sciences. It certainly does not refer to
neo-liberalism and Keynesian economics. It also does
not refer to Economics and Social Sciences in general.
There are sub-branches of Economics, History,
Archeology, Anthropology and Sociology that use the
scientific method, and can be legitimately categorized
under applied sciences.

But more importantly if a student is asked to name a
scientific theory, he/she would not name
neo-liberalism or Keynesian economics, unless he is
ignorant or he wants to confuse people into believing
that every school of thought is some kind of science.

People also use terms such as Christian science,
Scientology, Biblical science, Creation science, Vedic
science, Quranic science, Astrological science,
Pseudoscience, etc. It would be interesting to know if
the type of postmodernist confusion that is being
advocated in the above-referenced post, and the one
before it, would also include these entities under its
mishmashed definition of science or scientific theory.

Cheers,

Santosh

[CORNEL DACOSTA]

Hi Santosh

This is to say that I agree with you strongly. I also want to add that in
society we tend to have education that is intended to question things and
enlighten us away from 'primitive' thought. Unfortunately, we also have
indoctrination (most often at an early age to capture adherents for life)
via religion that contrasts significantly from the aim of education.
Unfortunately too, some cannot tell the difference or choose not to.

I am sure I will get some stick for saying this but I welcome it in the
interests of discourse.
Cornel

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.
Orlando

[Jerry Fernandes]

Hello Orlando,
Can u be more specific when you say that Darwanian Evolution was Religion
and not science?
According to dictionary, evolution is a scientific idea that plants and
animals develope and change gradually over a long period of time. As far as
I understood Darwanian Evolution, He said Man evolved from Primates. I
surely would like to know what you meant.

Cheers

Jerry Fernandes

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.

Orlando

[Kevin Saldanha]

Dear Santosh, Fredrick and others,

To put a Canadian perspective on this interesting thread, we have
publicly funded Catholic schools that purport to follow the Provincial
curriculum guidelines for science subjects in high school which says,
among other things of the objectives of module on Evolution in Grade
12 science "By the end of this course, students will: *outline
evidence and arguments pertaining to the origin, development, and
diversity of living organisms on Earth (e.g., evaluate current
evidence that supports the theory of evolution and that feeds the
debate on gradualism and punctuated equilibrium);"
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science1112curr.pdf

Where does Adam and Eve fit in? How can the most important scientific
theory of how we got here be taught with any integrity by an
institution that all but denies the basics of Evolution?

This query was recently submitted as a grant proposal to the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for funding to
study the effect of including Intelligent Design in high school
teaching. The evaluation committee, suffering from the same delusions
that were to be studied, TURNED DOWN THE REQUEST, saying, in effect,
that Intelligent Design was a valid theory!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Alters

If this is the state of education in Canada, we deserve a generation
of God-fearing lemmings.

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.

===
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution


People also use terms such as Christian science,
Scientology, Biblical science, Creation science, Vedic
science, Quranic science, Astrological science,
Pseudoscience, etc. It would be interesting to know if
the type of postmodernist confusion that is being
advocated in the above-referenced post, and the one
before it, would also include these entities under its
mishmashed definition of science or scientific theory.

Cheers,

Santosh

[Santosh Helekar]

Post by angel
Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California
calls it is a World view of our culture, a view of
the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially
sponsored creation story of our culture" (emphasis
are mine)

The above post has got to be simply an extended flame
bait. It is hard to imagine anybody would seriously
cite a creationist lawyer's opinion and his own
home-baked beliefs as an argument against an
established scientific principle, a biological fact
that is supported by overwhelming evidence.

As far as human evolution is concerned, one of the
most compelling pieces of recent evidence in favor of
the descent of humans from the common ancestor of
non-human primates, namely chimpanzees and bonobos, is
the 98% structural similarity of DNA between the three
species of primates.

What is Phillip Johnson's abstract legal argument
against that physical evidence?

Cheers,

Santosh

Post by angel
I believe it has managed to survive only by
techniques of rethoric and
arguments not real sience, and sometimes even
fraudaulent generalisations. I
call this Darwinian apologetics. Hence my view that
there is no science
here, it is a religion.
.............................................
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a
period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other
factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new
species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.
Orlando

[Mervyn Lobo]

Post by angel
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no proof of any species
evolving into another over a period of time.
However adaption to climatic changes and scores of >

other factors, which cause variations within

Post by angel
species without creating a new species per say, is >

sold to us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.



Orlando,
I am not too sure if man has evolved from primates or
if that is the direction man is going. However, I am
quite convinced that angels have morphed from fairies.
Fairies being male angels.

Since we are on this subject, if anyone is interested,
I can prove that the earth is the centre of the
universe. And yes, don't ask unless you are prepared
to be shocked!

Lobowitz.
(Have dogs evolved from wolfs?)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Carvalho]

Post by angel
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a
period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other
factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new
species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.
Orlando

----------------------------------------

The debate over creationism v/s evolution, is not
contingent on evolution being a plausible theory (for
which by the way there is plenty of evidence) but
rather on creationism being an untenable one.

Science has a built-in self-correcting mechanism based
on peer reviews and re-evaluation of hypotesis when
more evidence comes into play. Religion is not held to
such stringent standards, which is fine if one is in
the business of hypotheses pertaining to the soul.
However theories and ideology pertaining to the
creation and evolution of the world, the psychology of
the human mind, the ailments of the human body, the
judicial system and politics are best left to their
respective disciplines. Religion should take the moral
leadership and acknowledge that it simply does not
have any authority on these subjects. That would be
the most ethical and honest thing to do.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/

[Santosh Helekar]

What is wrong with stating facts that contradict
someone's beliefs?

What is wrong with attempting to convince someone that
he/she is mistaken?

What is wrong with informing other readers that what
they read on Goanet is not true?

What is wrong with wanting to find out if our beliefs
are right or wrong?

What is wrong with having intellectual curiosity?

What is wrong with trying to educate ourselves?

Cheers,

Santosh

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we
try to convince him otherwise? I hope his beliefs
make him a better
person... that's all that matters. I wouldn't want
anyone judging the
rightness (or wrongness) of my own beliefs... as
long as it doesn't
harm them in any way. FN

[Santosh Helekar]

Post by angel
I am surprised that you chose the 98% similarity
between chimp and bono species to make your point,
why not Homology or Embryology (Haeckels embryos
in particular?) are they dead ends so far as

Darwinism >are concerned?
I know that Orlando does not believe what he is
writing in this thread, unless he has had a recent
conversion that I don't know about. He is merely
playing the devil's advocate, or more correctly, a
creator/designer god's advocate here.

The structural similarity in the DNA is the most
powerful means of ascertaining the relatedness between
individuals through direct or common descent. It is
used to establish paternity, maternity, ancestry and
geneology in medicine and the courtroom. It is also
shown to be the basis of the observed homology at the
anatomical, embryological, physiological and cellular
level.

An established scientific principle is a complete
rational explanation for which the evidence is
overwhelming. The theory of evolution by natural
selection satisfies this definition in all respects.

First, it is a complete rational explanation because
it provides a specific plausible mechanism that
explains the diversity and complexity of the living
world, and the apparent structural and functional
similarities between different species. It is a
scientific theory because it is testable, and because
it is consistent with all other established scientific
principles such as the laws of Physics and Chemistry.
A testable theory is one which makes specific
predictions that can be verified or falsified by
observation and experiment. The following predictions
of the theory of evolution have been irrefutably
verified:

1. Living species have changed in complexity and
diversity in a graded manner over the last 4 billion
years.

2. Organisms show random variations in structure and
function in each generation.

3. The variations are inherited.

4. A specific common molecular genetic mechanism
explains both the variations and their inheritance.

5. The inherited variations that offer an advantage in
a given environment become more common in each
successive generation as long as the environment
remains similar. Those that offer a disadvantage are
eliminated. They may be preserved in a different
environment, however. Those variations that are
indifferent do not change in frequency in the general
population. However, they may become common or
disappear if a small population became geographically
isolated.

6. The molecular genetic differences between any two
species depend precisely on when in the history of
this planet their lineages separated from each other
(the lineages and point of divergence determined
independently by fossil evidence). The greater the
amount of difference the longer is the temporal
distance of separation.

7. The structures and mechanisms found in all species
are merely functional under a given environment. They
are not optimally efficient in many cases. There are
also many useless or non-functional structures and
mechanisms.

8. Structures and mechanisms used for one purpose in
an organism is used in an intermediate or incomplete
form in another organism sharing a common ancestral
lineage. There are non-functional eyes, components of
the bacterial flagellum, steps in the blood clotting
mechanisms, etc used for other purposes in other
organisms.

Yes, there are incomplete mouse traps in biology. The
creationist Michael Behe has simply written a book
full of factual errors. So have the others. For an
exposition of the factual misinformation and erroneous
speculations in their writings, please read the books
and articles of evolutionary biologists Ken Miller and
Massimo Pigliuci, the Nobel laureate Russell Doolittle
(who discovered the blood clotting mechanism) and the
evolutionary theorist Robert Pennock.

The religious concept of creationism and its modern
version, intelligent design, do not provide a specific
plausible mechanism to explain all the features of
Biology listed above. The undefined concept of a
creator or designer is not a testable hypothesis. Its
only semblance of a prediction, namely that there is a
such a creator/designer cannot be objectively verified
or falsified. It only raises more unanswered
questions:

What is the physical nature of this creator/designer?
How did it come into being fully formed with the
ability to design and create?
What is the specific mechanism that it uses to design
and create?
Why and how does it make mistakes in designing and
creating?
Why did it not design and create all species at once?
Why did it have to stagger them over 4 billion years?
Why did it not create humans before creating
unicellular organisms?

So before proposing common design as an explanation
for the 98% similarity between chimp and human DNA,
all of the above questions need to be answered, and
objective evidence obtained in support of at least
some of those answers.

Now regarding the abstract legal and philosophical
arguments of religious creationists cited below,
please see the following link for the most recent
comprehensive court ruling that points out the gaping
flaws and falsehoods in them, and determines that
intelligent design is an unscientific belief:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Cheers,

Santosh

Post by angel
My take is you are repeating Berra's Blunder. It is
sad when one has to take the stand that 'it has all
been explained before' or like in your case 'is
an established scientific principal' why not simply
exchange views?
I do not see any "compelling pieces of evidence in
favor of descent of
humans from common ancestor" with the similarity in
genes. If you are
assuming as neo-Darwinism does, that we are what we
are because of our
genes, then you are saying that the amazing
difference between us and the
other primates is because of the 2% dissimilar genes
we carry. The 98% of
the common genes happen to be the so called
body-building genes, in my
opinion this similarity is just as compatible with
COMMON DESIGN as it might
be with common ancestry.
To me the evolutionary icons, (one of which we just
discussed above) are not
persuasive anymore, the creationist lawyer's
incisive insights are one of
the reason for the skepticism with which I look at
Darwinism today. There
are others too like Michael Behe, William A.
Dembski, James M Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are
interested in the debate to
look these authors up.

[Carvalho]

Excellent post Santosh! Enjoyed reading it.

selma

Post by Santosh Helekar
The structural similarity in the DNA is the most
powerful means of ascertaining the relatedness
between
individuals through direct or common descent.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

[Sunith D Velho]

Most of the mentioned authors have only the 'logic' of irreducible
complexity to suport their arguments and are thus rejected by
mainstream science.

This argument generally finds favour with those who do not understand
natural selection or who think evolution is pure 'chance'.

It is further boosted because it is a pefect fit with what most people
are brainwashed with as children i.e. if you can't explain something,
it must be God's work.

If there truly exists anything irreducibly complex in nature, then what
about the entity that designed it. Wouldn't the same 'logic' apply to
that entity?

Or are logic and science to be selectively applied?

Sunith Velho

There are others too like Michael Behe, William A. >Dembski, James M
Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are interested in >the debate to
look these authors up.

[Mervyn Lobo]

"Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we try to convince him otherwise?
I hope his beliefs make him a better person...
that's all that matters. I wouldn't want anyone
judging the rightness (or wrongness) of my own
beliefs... as long as it doesn't harm them in any
way.

FN,
There are beliefs and then there is knowledge. Here in
Canada there are people who refuse to accept blood
transfusions because of their religious beliefs. I
have no problems with such people who, essentially,
remove themselves from the gene pool because of their
beliefs. However, the same person becomes a problem to
society when he also insists that his infant child
should not receive a blood transfusion, one that would
save the infants life.

I think you will agree with me that this is an example
of when knowledge has to trump beliefs.

Mervyn3.0

"All truth passes through three stages. First it is
ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it
is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer -



Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca

[Alfred de Tavares]

From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>
Reply-To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:42:09 -0400 (EDT)
"Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we try to convince him otherwise?
I hope his beliefs make him a better person...
that's all that matters.

Rico, How bad is the guy in prospect? god forfend worse than I.

&, would you endeavour to turn him as good as you? Better? On par?

Chacha

FN,
There are beliefs and then there is knowledge. Here in
Canada there are people who refuse to accept blood
transfusions because of their religious beliefs. I
have no problems with such people who, essentially,
remove themselves from the gene pool because of their
beliefs. However, the same person becomes a problem to
society when he also insists that his infant child
should not receive a blood transfusion, one that would
save the infants life.
I think you will agree with me that this is an example
of when knowledge has to trump beliefs.
Mervyn3.0
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is
ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it
is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer -
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at
http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
-------------------------------------------------------
Goanet recommends, and is proud to be associated with,
'Domnic's Goa' - A nostalgic romp through a bygone era.
This book is the perfect gift for any Goan, or anyone
wanting to understand Goa. Distributed locally by
Broadway, near Caculo Island, Panjim & internationally
by OtherIndiaBookStore.Com. For trade enquiries contact
cecilpinto at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Bosco D'Mello]

And while the saga of Creation vs Evolution continues here on Goanet, I'd
like to point out that Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and
an inspiration to Charles Darwin is being toasted by his fellow Swedes
marking the 300th anniversary of his birth tomorrow - May 23/07.

Tercentenary celebrations run all week in the hallowed university town of
Uppsala.

http://globecareers.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20070519/LINNAEUS19?section=Science

- Bosco

[Alfred de Tavares]

Bosco,

I shook hands with the Emperorof Japan and his lady, visiting
Sweden in honnour of Linnea.

I wish i had requested Venantius Pinto, conversant in their language
for a suitable salutation.

I don?t think the opportunity will arise again.

AT

From: "Bosco D'Mello" <bospam at canada.com>
Reply-To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 00:04:22 -0400
And while the saga of Creation vs Evolution continues here on Goanet, I'd
like to point out that Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and
an inspiration to Charles Darwin is being toasted by his fellow Swedes
marking the 300th anniversary of his birth tomorrow - May 23/07.
Tercentenary celebrations run all week in the hallowed university town of
Uppsala.
http://globecareers.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20070519/LINNAEUS19?section=Science
- Bosco
-------------------------------------------------------
Goanet recommends, and is proud to be associated with,
'Domnic's Goa' - A nostalgic romp through a bygone era.
This book is the perfect gift for any Goan, or anyone
wanting to understand Goa. Distributed locally by
Broadway, near Caculo Island, Panjim & internationally
by OtherIndiaBookStore.Com. For trade enquiries contact
cecilpinto at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Arnold Noronha]

On 13 May 2007 : "Sunith Velho" <sunith_v at rediffmail.com> in response to
Frederick Noronha's earlier post wrote:
Re: [Goanet] Tolerating Creationism

So, as far as these creationists don't block you on
believing what you want, why should you evolutionists >deny them of the
same?

Sunith responds:
Because creationism (or the Catholic version of it) is trying to creep
its
way into schools all over the world in the guise of a legitimate
scientific
theory and is being used to brainwash young children.

There is as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the
theory
that years ago a galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion
beings from an overcrowded corner of the universe, dumping them on Earth
before killing them with nuclear bombs(which is what Scientologists
believe!).

Sunith

Hello Fred and Sunith:
Your intense discourse on Mankind's Origins seems to have reached an
impasse. Apparently, the controversy surrounding this enigmatic scientific
subject with religious overtones or vice-versa,( as you like it) will not
be settled until Hell freeses over. Hence to you and like-minded Juggernauts
of Goanet engaged in this debate, I proffer the following verse :

Choosing between Creationism and Evolution
What?s the most rational and moral solution
To terminate ?nip and tuck? strife and elocution?
Without a face-saving and retarding dilution
Or the bathos of ravaging intellectual pollution

Scrubbing the intelligent with enlightening ablution
Could we develop an amalgamated convolution?
forgoing predilection, passion and seminal intuition
Ere mankind reaches the bloodshed of a revolution
Requiring a Higher Power(s)' stern interlocution

But for Heaven?s sake why have all this bitter consternation
Twixt savants for their opposing theories seeking justification
In the search for our Origins with scrutiny and elaboration
That seems to lead to Oblivion with internecine vilification
When what?s important is not our Origins but our Destination

Cheers
Arnold

_________________________________________________________________
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You?ll love Windows Live
Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

So is this an issue of:

* Religious agendas being pushed in State-funded schools (in which
case, can't people
believe what they want to, at the private level, s long as it
doesn't hurt the wider society)
* Falsehood being pushed over "truth" (who decides in a world where that humble
George Bush denies the reality of global warming)?
* What Catholics (or other creationists) believe and teach in their
own institutions?
(Why should we bother, if they do it on their own moolah?) Or are we like the
RSS, deciding what should be the syllabi of Madrasas, and laying it down for
others?
* What you want other people to believe, in a world which is
increasingly fighting
diversity, and it's becoming increasingly clear that we lack common
understandings
and shared approaches?

So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

May I remind you that the issue came up over what "Mario's camp"
believes, chooses to believe, or is seen to believe by our friend
Selma. It was not about what was being taught in schools in the US.
So couldn't someone accuse us of attempting to shift the goalposts?

I have no problem with what Mario believes... (that's his problem).
Even though I don't agree with him.

Please tell me why I should be concerned about his belief in
Creationism (assuming that is his belief). Thanks and regards, FN

PS: Arnold, your poem was very cool... and your talent in verse,
awesome (as they would say in your part of the world, where they also
teach Creationism to kids in school).

Let's also not forget that in Mario's camp, most
people believe that the world was created in 6 days,
based on that indisputable authority on scientific
reasoning known as the Bible. :-)
On 13 May 2007 : "Sunith Velho" <sunith_v at rediffmail.com> in response to
Re: [Goanet] Tolerating Creationism

So, as far as these creationists don't block you on
believing what you want, why should you evolutionists >deny them of the
same?

Because creationism (or the Catholic version of it) is trying to creep
its
way into schools all over the world in the guise of a legitimate
scientific
theory and is being used to brainwash young children.
There is as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the
theory
that years ago a galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion
beings from an overcrowded corner of the universe, dumping them on Earth
before killing them with nuclear bombs(which is what Scientologists
believe!).
Sunith

[Gabe Menezes]

........................................But for Heaven's sake why have
all this bitter consternation
Twixt savants for their opposing theories seeking justification
In the search for our Origins ..........................

Post by Arnold Noronha
Cheers
Arnold

Comment: There is only one Savant on his Goanet site !

[Carvalho]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"
<fredericknoronha at gmail.com> wrote:

* What Catholics (or other creationists) believe and

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
teach in their
own institutions?
(Why should we bother, if they do it on their own
moolah?) Or are we like the
RSS, deciding what should be the syllabi of
Madrasas, and laying it down for
others?

-------------------------------
Dear Frederick,

The RSS is not an elected body representative of the
people and hence it has no jurisdiction in India.
However, the government should definitely be looking
into what is taught in schools.

Isn't it a fact that students who come from madrasas
fair poorly at higher institutes of learning in India,
not to mention in the work-place? Hence, aren't we
doing a dis-service to young children who have no
choice in what their parents choose as their
instruction?

If someone wants to learn classical Islamic
literature, or the trails of Moses and Abraham, or the
medicinal merits of ayurveda, the benefits of yoga
breathing or the joys of stamp collecting, they are
free to do so at their own leisure but school
curriculum should be secular in all respects.

Incase you are going to ask if I will apply the same
standards to Catholic schools (also known as covent
schools), the reason they do well in India is because
their curriculum is secular and they offer an A-grade
education in all respects.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

[Sunith Velho]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

My demands are as follows:
*Ban all forms of Religious teaching in state funded schools.
*Stop parading religious fiction as plausible scientifc theory in all
schools(private and public)
*Stop the using of schools(private and public) to brainwash young children
with teachings based on dogmas, instead teach them that nothing is beyond
the realm of reason.

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
I have no problem with what Mario believes... (that's >>his problem).Even
though I don't agree with him.Please tell me why I should be concerned
about his belief....

I am concerned about his beliefs because, my spam filters(now that they are
working) overflow every few days with his unsolicited mails. What he or his
kind are doing to the US school system is none of my concern. If ID was
being taught in Indian schools I would be concerned.

Closer to home, what right wing religious zealots such as MM Joshi in India
are trying to do to our education system because of their private
(religious) beliefs is of great concern to me. Are you saying that I should
not be concerned when an HRD minister believes astrology is a science and
tries to force it into the science curriculum?

If the next Economic Minsiter of India privately believes in numerology,
should I share your attitude?

Should we also assume that people's private beliefs have no bearing on the
way they conduct themselves in public life?

Selma has rightly pointed out the perils of an approach that condones
illogical and sometimes dangerous beliefs in the name of being tolerant
towards other cultures and religions.

Sunith

[Santosh Helekar]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
One man's dogma is another man's science. For
instance, neo-liberalism as a dogma, Keynesian
economic thought at another era, and so on.

What a horrible misunderstanding of science! No
science teacher has ever taught neo-liberalism or
Keynesian economic thought as science, anywhere. No
student of science would ever confuse them as having
anything do with science. Nonetheless, once again a
wholly contrived dose of confusion is being injected
into this issue as well.

A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.

Cheers,

Santosh

[Santosh Helekar]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the
dismal science? Is the world made up of natural
sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough?

To muck things up further, please note that
neo-liberalism and Keynesian economic thought, which
were posited as scientific theories in the earlier
bout of confusion, have now nicely morphed into
economics and social sciences in general, pitted
against natural sciences.

The simple truth is that the subject of this thread,
namely the theory of evolution, is taught in a science
class in high schools and in the science stream in
colleges. Science used generically in this case refers
to natural sciences. It certainly does not refer to
neo-liberalism and Keynesian economics. It also does
not refer to Economics and Social Sciences in general.
There are sub-branches of Economics, History,
Archeology, Anthropology and Sociology that use the
scientific method, and can be legitimately categorized
under applied sciences.

But more importantly if a student is asked to name a
scientific theory, he/she would not name
neo-liberalism or Keynesian economics, unless he is
ignorant or he wants to confuse people into believing
that every school of thought is some kind of science.

People also use terms such as Christian science,
Scientology, Biblical science, Creation science, Vedic
science, Quranic science, Astrological science,
Pseudoscience, etc. It would be interesting to know if
the type of postmodernist confusion that is being
advocated in the above-referenced post, and the one
before it, would also include these entities under its
mishmashed definition of science or scientific theory.

Cheers,

Santosh

[CORNEL DACOSTA]

Hi Santosh

This is to say that I agree with you strongly. I also want to add that in
society we tend to have education that is intended to question things and
enlighten us away from 'primitive' thought. Unfortunately, we also have
indoctrination (most often at an early age to capture adherents for life)
via religion that contrasts significantly from the aim of education.
Unfortunately too, some cannot tell the difference or choose not to.

I am sure I will get some stick for saying this but I welcome it in the
interests of discourse.
Cornel

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.
Orlando

[Jerry Fernandes]

Hello Orlando,
Can u be more specific when you say that Darwanian Evolution was Religion
and not science?
According to dictionary, evolution is a scientific idea that plants and
animals develope and change gradually over a long period of time. As far as
I understood Darwanian Evolution, He said Man evolved from Primates. I
surely would like to know what you meant.

Cheers

Jerry Fernandes

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.

Orlando

[Kevin Saldanha]

Dear Santosh, Fredrick and others,

To put a Canadian perspective on this interesting thread, we have
publicly funded Catholic schools that purport to follow the Provincial
curriculum guidelines for science subjects in high school which says,
among other things of the objectives of module on Evolution in Grade
12 science "By the end of this course, students will: *outline
evidence and arguments pertaining to the origin, development, and
diversity of living organisms on Earth (e.g., evaluate current
evidence that supports the theory of evolution and that feeds the
debate on gradualism and punctuated equilibrium);"
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science1112curr.pdf

Where does Adam and Eve fit in? How can the most important scientific
theory of how we got here be taught with any integrity by an
institution that all but denies the basics of Evolution?

This query was recently submitted as a grant proposal to the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for funding to
study the effect of including Intelligent Design in high school
teaching. The evaluation committee, suffering from the same delusions
that were to be studied, TURNED DOWN THE REQUEST, saying, in effect,
that Intelligent Design was a valid theory!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Alters

If this is the state of education in Canada, we deserve a generation
of God-fearing lemmings.

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.

===
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution


People also use terms such as Christian science,
Scientology, Biblical science, Creation science, Vedic
science, Quranic science, Astrological science,
Pseudoscience, etc. It would be interesting to know if
the type of postmodernist confusion that is being
advocated in the above-referenced post, and the one
before it, would also include these entities under its
mishmashed definition of science or scientific theory.

Cheers,

Santosh

[Santosh Helekar]

Post by angel
Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California
calls it is a World view of our culture, a view of
the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially
sponsored creation story of our culture" (emphasis
are mine)

The above post has got to be simply an extended flame
bait. It is hard to imagine anybody would seriously
cite a creationist lawyer's opinion and his own
home-baked beliefs as an argument against an
established scientific principle, a biological fact
that is supported by overwhelming evidence.

As far as human evolution is concerned, one of the
most compelling pieces of recent evidence in favor of
the descent of humans from the common ancestor of
non-human primates, namely chimpanzees and bonobos, is
the 98% structural similarity of DNA between the three
species of primates.

What is Phillip Johnson's abstract legal argument
against that physical evidence?

Cheers,

Santosh

Post by angel
I believe it has managed to survive only by
techniques of rethoric and
arguments not real sience, and sometimes even
fraudaulent generalisations. I
call this Darwinian apologetics. Hence my view that
there is no science
here, it is a religion.
.............................................
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a
period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other
factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new
species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.
Orlando

[Mervyn Lobo]

Post by angel
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no proof of any species
evolving into another over a period of time.
However adaption to climatic changes and scores of >

other factors, which cause variations within

Post by angel
species without creating a new species per say, is >

sold to us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.



Orlando,
I am not too sure if man has evolved from primates or
if that is the direction man is going. However, I am
quite convinced that angels have morphed from fairies.
Fairies being male angels.

Since we are on this subject, if anyone is interested,
I can prove that the earth is the centre of the
universe. And yes, don't ask unless you are prepared
to be shocked!

Lobowitz.
(Have dogs evolved from wolfs?)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Carvalho]

Post by angel
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a
period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other
factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new
species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.
Orlando

----------------------------------------

The debate over creationism v/s evolution, is not
contingent on evolution being a plausible theory (for
which by the way there is plenty of evidence) but
rather on creationism being an untenable one.

Science has a built-in self-correcting mechanism based
on peer reviews and re-evaluation of hypotesis when
more evidence comes into play. Religion is not held to
such stringent standards, which is fine if one is in
the business of hypotheses pertaining to the soul.
However theories and ideology pertaining to the
creation and evolution of the world, the psychology of
the human mind, the ailments of the human body, the
judicial system and politics are best left to their
respective disciplines. Religion should take the moral
leadership and acknowledge that it simply does not
have any authority on these subjects. That would be
the most ethical and honest thing to do.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/

[Santosh Helekar]

What is wrong with stating facts that contradict
someone's beliefs?

What is wrong with attempting to convince someone that
he/she is mistaken?

What is wrong with informing other readers that what
they read on Goanet is not true?

What is wrong with wanting to find out if our beliefs
are right or wrong?

What is wrong with having intellectual curiosity?

What is wrong with trying to educate ourselves?

Cheers,

Santosh

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we
try to convince him otherwise? I hope his beliefs
make him a better
person... that's all that matters. I wouldn't want
anyone judging the
rightness (or wrongness) of my own beliefs... as
long as it doesn't
harm them in any way. FN

[Santosh Helekar]

Post by angel
I am surprised that you chose the 98% similarity
between chimp and bono species to make your point,
why not Homology or Embryology (Haeckels embryos
in particular?) are they dead ends so far as

Darwinism >are concerned?
I know that Orlando does not believe what he is
writing in this thread, unless he has had a recent
conversion that I don't know about. He is merely
playing the devil's advocate, or more correctly, a
creator/designer god's advocate here.

The structural similarity in the DNA is the most
powerful means of ascertaining the relatedness between
individuals through direct or common descent. It is
used to establish paternity, maternity, ancestry and
geneology in medicine and the courtroom. It is also
shown to be the basis of the observed homology at the
anatomical, embryological, physiological and cellular
level.

An established scientific principle is a complete
rational explanation for which the evidence is
overwhelming. The theory of evolution by natural
selection satisfies this definition in all respects.

First, it is a complete rational explanation because
it provides a specific plausible mechanism that
explains the diversity and complexity of the living
world, and the apparent structural and functional
similarities between different species. It is a
scientific theory because it is testable, and because
it is consistent with all other established scientific
principles such as the laws of Physics and Chemistry.
A testable theory is one which makes specific
predictions that can be verified or falsified by
observation and experiment. The following predictions
of the theory of evolution have been irrefutably
verified:

1. Living species have changed in complexity and
diversity in a graded manner over the last 4 billion
years.

2. Organisms show random variations in structure and
function in each generation.

3. The variations are inherited.

4. A specific common molecular genetic mechanism
explains both the variations and their inheritance.

5. The inherited variations that offer an advantage in
a given environment become more common in each
successive generation as long as the environment
remains similar. Those that offer a disadvantage are
eliminated. They may be preserved in a different
environment, however. Those variations that are
indifferent do not change in frequency in the general
population. However, they may become common or
disappear if a small population became geographically
isolated.

6. The molecular genetic differences between any two
species depend precisely on when in the history of
this planet their lineages separated from each other
(the lineages and point of divergence determined
independently by fossil evidence). The greater the
amount of difference the longer is the temporal
distance of separation.

7. The structures and mechanisms found in all species
are merely functional under a given environment. They
are not optimally efficient in many cases. There are
also many useless or non-functional structures and
mechanisms.

8. Structures and mechanisms used for one purpose in
an organism is used in an intermediate or incomplete
form in another organism sharing a common ancestral
lineage. There are non-functional eyes, components of
the bacterial flagellum, steps in the blood clotting
mechanisms, etc used for other purposes in other
organisms.

Yes, there are incomplete mouse traps in biology. The
creationist Michael Behe has simply written a book
full of factual errors. So have the others. For an
exposition of the factual misinformation and erroneous
speculations in their writings, please read the books
and articles of evolutionary biologists Ken Miller and
Massimo Pigliuci, the Nobel laureate Russell Doolittle
(who discovered the blood clotting mechanism) and the
evolutionary theorist Robert Pennock.

The religious concept of creationism and its modern
version, intelligent design, do not provide a specific
plausible mechanism to explain all the features of
Biology listed above. The undefined concept of a
creator or designer is not a testable hypothesis. Its
only semblance of a prediction, namely that there is a
such a creator/designer cannot be objectively verified
or falsified. It only raises more unanswered
questions:

What is the physical nature of this creator/designer?
How did it come into being fully formed with the
ability to design and create?
What is the specific mechanism that it uses to design
and create?
Why and how does it make mistakes in designing and
creating?
Why did it not design and create all species at once?
Why did it have to stagger them over 4 billion years?
Why did it not create humans before creating
unicellular organisms?

So before proposing common design as an explanation
for the 98% similarity between chimp and human DNA,
all of the above questions need to be answered, and
objective evidence obtained in support of at least
some of those answers.

Now regarding the abstract legal and philosophical
arguments of religious creationists cited below,
please see the following link for the most recent
comprehensive court ruling that points out the gaping
flaws and falsehoods in them, and determines that
intelligent design is an unscientific belief:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Cheers,

Santosh

Post by angel
My take is you are repeating Berra's Blunder. It is
sad when one has to take the stand that 'it has all
been explained before' or like in your case 'is
an established scientific principal' why not simply
exchange views?
I do not see any "compelling pieces of evidence in
favor of descent of
humans from common ancestor" with the similarity in
genes. If you are
assuming as neo-Darwinism does, that we are what we
are because of our
genes, then you are saying that the amazing
difference between us and the
other primates is because of the 2% dissimilar genes
we carry. The 98% of
the common genes happen to be the so called
body-building genes, in my
opinion this similarity is just as compatible with
COMMON DESIGN as it might
be with common ancestry.
To me the evolutionary icons, (one of which we just
discussed above) are not
persuasive anymore, the creationist lawyer's
incisive insights are one of
the reason for the skepticism with which I look at
Darwinism today. There
are others too like Michael Behe, William A.
Dembski, James M Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are
interested in the debate to
look these authors up.

[Carvalho]

Excellent post Santosh! Enjoyed reading it.

selma

Post by Santosh Helekar
The structural similarity in the DNA is the most
powerful means of ascertaining the relatedness
between
individuals through direct or common descent.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

[Sunith D Velho]

Most of the mentioned authors have only the 'logic' of irreducible
complexity to suport their arguments and are thus rejected by
mainstream science.

This argument generally finds favour with those who do not understand
natural selection or who think evolution is pure 'chance'.

It is further boosted because it is a pefect fit with what most people
are brainwashed with as children i.e. if you can't explain something,
it must be God's work.

If there truly exists anything irreducibly complex in nature, then what
about the entity that designed it. Wouldn't the same 'logic' apply to
that entity?

Or are logic and science to be selectively applied?

Sunith Velho

There are others too like Michael Behe, William A. >Dembski, James M
Kushiner, Lee
Strobel etc. I urge those on this list who are interested in >the debate to
look these authors up.

[Mervyn Lobo]

"Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we try to convince him otherwise?
I hope his beliefs make him a better person...
that's all that matters. I wouldn't want anyone
judging the rightness (or wrongness) of my own
beliefs... as long as it doesn't harm them in any
way.

FN,
There are beliefs and then there is knowledge. Here in
Canada there are people who refuse to accept blood
transfusions because of their religious beliefs. I
have no problems with such people who, essentially,
remove themselves from the gene pool because of their
beliefs. However, the same person becomes a problem to
society when he also insists that his infant child
should not receive a blood transfusion, one that would
save the infants life.

I think you will agree with me that this is an example
of when knowledge has to trump beliefs.

Mervyn3.0

"All truth passes through three stages. First it is
ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it
is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer -



Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca

[Alfred de Tavares]

From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>
Reply-To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:42:09 -0400 (EDT)
"Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
What's wrong if Orlando believes in what he wants
to? Why should we try to convince him otherwise?
I hope his beliefs make him a better person...
that's all that matters.

Rico, How bad is the guy in prospect? god forfend worse than I.

&, would you endeavour to turn him as good as you? Better? On par?

Chacha

FN,
There are beliefs and then there is knowledge. Here in
Canada there are people who refuse to accept blood
transfusions because of their religious beliefs. I
have no problems with such people who, essentially,
remove themselves from the gene pool because of their
beliefs. However, the same person becomes a problem to
society when he also insists that his infant child
should not receive a blood transfusion, one that would
save the infants life.
I think you will agree with me that this is an example
of when knowledge has to trump beliefs.
Mervyn3.0
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is
ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it
is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer -
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at
http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
-------------------------------------------------------
Goanet recommends, and is proud to be associated with,
'Domnic's Goa' - A nostalgic romp through a bygone era.
This book is the perfect gift for any Goan, or anyone
wanting to understand Goa. Distributed locally by
Broadway, near Caculo Island, Panjim & internationally
by OtherIndiaBookStore.Com. For trade enquiries contact
cecilpinto at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Bosco D'Mello]

And while the saga of Creation vs Evolution continues here on Goanet, I'd
like to point out that Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and
an inspiration to Charles Darwin is being toasted by his fellow Swedes
marking the 300th anniversary of his birth tomorrow - May 23/07.

Tercentenary celebrations run all week in the hallowed university town of
Uppsala.

http://globecareers.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20070519/LINNAEUS19?section=Science

- Bosco

[Alfred de Tavares]

Bosco,

I shook hands with the Emperorof Japan and his lady, visiting
Sweden in honnour of Linnea.

I wish i had requested Venantius Pinto, conversant in their language
for a suitable salutation.

I don?t think the opportunity will arise again.

AT

From: "Bosco D'Mello" <bospam at canada.com>
Reply-To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 00:04:22 -0400
And while the saga of Creation vs Evolution continues here on Goanet, I'd
like to point out that Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and
an inspiration to Charles Darwin is being toasted by his fellow Swedes
marking the 300th anniversary of his birth tomorrow - May 23/07.
Tercentenary celebrations run all week in the hallowed university town of
Uppsala.
http://globecareers.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20070519/LINNAEUS19?section=Science
- Bosco
-------------------------------------------------------
Goanet recommends, and is proud to be associated with,
'Domnic's Goa' - A nostalgic romp through a bygone era.
This book is the perfect gift for any Goan, or anyone
wanting to understand Goa. Distributed locally by
Broadway, near Caculo Island, Panjim & internationally
by OtherIndiaBookStore.Com. For trade enquiries contact
cecilpinto at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Arnold Noronha]

On 13 May 2007 : "Sunith Velho" <sunith_v at rediffmail.com> in response to
Frederick Noronha's earlier post wrote:
Re: [Goanet] Tolerating Creationism

So, as far as these creationists don't block you on
believing what you want, why should you evolutionists >deny them of the
same?

Sunith responds:
Because creationism (or the Catholic version of it) is trying to creep
its
way into schools all over the world in the guise of a legitimate
scientific
theory and is being used to brainwash young children.

There is as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the
theory
that years ago a galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion
beings from an overcrowded corner of the universe, dumping them on Earth
before killing them with nuclear bombs(which is what Scientologists
believe!).

Sunith

Hello Fred and Sunith:
Your intense discourse on Mankind's Origins seems to have reached an
impasse. Apparently, the controversy surrounding this enigmatic scientific
subject with religious overtones or vice-versa,( as you like it) will not
be settled until Hell freeses over. Hence to you and like-minded Juggernauts
of Goanet engaged in this debate, I proffer the following verse :

Choosing between Creationism and Evolution
What?s the most rational and moral solution
To terminate ?nip and tuck? strife and elocution?
Without a face-saving and retarding dilution
Or the bathos of ravaging intellectual pollution

Scrubbing the intelligent with enlightening ablution
Could we develop an amalgamated convolution?
forgoing predilection, passion and seminal intuition
Ere mankind reaches the bloodshed of a revolution
Requiring a Higher Power(s)' stern interlocution

But for Heaven?s sake why have all this bitter consternation
Twixt savants for their opposing theories seeking justification
In the search for our Origins with scrutiny and elaboration
That seems to lead to Oblivion with internecine vilification
When what?s important is not our Origins but our Destination

Cheers
Arnold

_________________________________________________________________
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You?ll love Windows Live
Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

So is this an issue of:

* Religious agendas being pushed in State-funded schools (in which
case, can't people
believe what they want to, at the private level, s long as it
doesn't hurt the wider society)
* Falsehood being pushed over "truth" (who decides in a world where that humble
George Bush denies the reality of global warming)?
* What Catholics (or other creationists) believe and teach in their
own institutions?
(Why should we bother, if they do it on their own moolah?) Or are we like the
RSS, deciding what should be the syllabi of Madrasas, and laying it down for
others?
* What you want other people to believe, in a world which is
increasingly fighting
diversity, and it's becoming increasingly clear that we lack common
understandings
and shared approaches?

So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

May I remind you that the issue came up over what "Mario's camp"
believes, chooses to believe, or is seen to believe by our friend
Selma. It was not about what was being taught in schools in the US.
So couldn't someone accuse us of attempting to shift the goalposts?

I have no problem with what Mario believes... (that's his problem).
Even though I don't agree with him.

Please tell me why I should be concerned about his belief in
Creationism (assuming that is his belief). Thanks and regards, FN

PS: Arnold, your poem was very cool... and your talent in verse,
awesome (as they would say in your part of the world, where they also
teach Creationism to kids in school).

Let's also not forget that in Mario's camp, most
people believe that the world was created in 6 days,
based on that indisputable authority on scientific
reasoning known as the Bible. :-)
On 13 May 2007 : "Sunith Velho" <sunith_v at rediffmail.com> in response to
Re: [Goanet] Tolerating Creationism

So, as far as these creationists don't block you on
believing what you want, why should you evolutionists >deny them of the
same?

Because creationism (or the Catholic version of it) is trying to creep
its
way into schools all over the world in the guise of a legitimate
scientific
theory and is being used to brainwash young children.
There is as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the
theory
that years ago a galactic warlord called Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion
beings from an overcrowded corner of the universe, dumping them on Earth
before killing them with nuclear bombs(which is what Scientologists
believe!).
Sunith

[Gabe Menezes]

........................................But for Heaven's sake why have
all this bitter consternation
Twixt savants for their opposing theories seeking justification
In the search for our Origins ..........................

Post by Arnold Noronha
Cheers
Arnold

Comment: There is only one Savant on his Goanet site !

[Carvalho]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"
<fredericknoronha at gmail.com> wrote:

* What Catholics (or other creationists) believe and

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
teach in their
own institutions?
(Why should we bother, if they do it on their own
moolah?) Or are we like the
RSS, deciding what should be the syllabi of
Madrasas, and laying it down for
others?

-------------------------------
Dear Frederick,

The RSS is not an elected body representative of the
people and hence it has no jurisdiction in India.
However, the government should definitely be looking
into what is taught in schools.

Isn't it a fact that students who come from madrasas
fair poorly at higher institutes of learning in India,
not to mention in the work-place? Hence, aren't we
doing a dis-service to young children who have no
choice in what their parents choose as their
instruction?

If someone wants to learn classical Islamic
literature, or the trails of Moses and Abraham, or the
medicinal merits of ayurveda, the benefits of yoga
breathing or the joys of stamp collecting, they are
free to do so at their own leisure but school
curriculum should be secular in all respects.

Incase you are going to ask if I will apply the same
standards to Catholic schools (also known as covent
schools), the reason they do well in India is because
their curriculum is secular and they offer an A-grade
education in all respects.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

[Sunith Velho]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
So, Sunith, what is your specific demand?

My demands are as follows:
*Ban all forms of Religious teaching in state funded schools.
*Stop parading religious fiction as plausible scientifc theory in all
schools(private and public)
*Stop the using of schools(private and public) to brainwash young children
with teachings based on dogmas, instead teach them that nothing is beyond
the realm of reason.

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
I have no problem with what Mario believes... (that's >>his problem).Even
though I don't agree with him.Please tell me why I should be concerned
about his belief....

I am concerned about his beliefs because, my spam filters(now that they are
working) overflow every few days with his unsolicited mails. What he or his
kind are doing to the US school system is none of my concern. If ID was
being taught in Indian schools I would be concerned.

Closer to home, what right wing religious zealots such as MM Joshi in India
are trying to do to our education system because of their private
(religious) beliefs is of great concern to me. Are you saying that I should
not be concerned when an HRD minister believes astrology is a science and
tries to force it into the science curriculum?

If the next Economic Minsiter of India privately believes in numerology,
should I share your attitude?

Should we also assume that people's private beliefs have no bearing on the
way they conduct themselves in public life?

Selma has rightly pointed out the perils of an approach that condones
illogical and sometimes dangerous beliefs in the name of being tolerant
towards other cultures and religions.

Sunith

[Santosh Helekar]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
One man's dogma is another man's science. For
instance, neo-liberalism as a dogma, Keynesian
economic thought at another era, and so on.

What a horrible misunderstanding of science! No
science teacher has ever taught neo-liberalism or
Keynesian economic thought as science, anywhere. No
student of science would ever confuse them as having
anything do with science. Nonetheless, once again a
wholly contrived dose of confusion is being injected
into this issue as well.

A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.

Cheers,

Santosh

[Santosh Helekar]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
Haven't you heard of Economics as science, the
dismal science? Is the world made up of natural
sciences alone? Or are the social sciences
just not "scientific" enough?

To muck things up further, please note that
neo-liberalism and Keynesian economic thought, which
were posited as scientific theories in the earlier
bout of confusion, have now nicely morphed into
economics and social sciences in general, pitted
against natural sciences.

The simple truth is that the subject of this thread,
namely the theory of evolution, is taught in a science
class in high schools and in the science stream in
colleges. Science used generically in this case refers
to natural sciences. It certainly does not refer to
neo-liberalism and Keynesian economics. It also does
not refer to Economics and Social Sciences in general.
There are sub-branches of Economics, History,
Archeology, Anthropology and Sociology that use the
scientific method, and can be legitimately categorized
under applied sciences.

But more importantly if a student is asked to name a
scientific theory, he/she would not name
neo-liberalism or Keynesian economics, unless he is
ignorant or he wants to confuse people into believing
that every school of thought is some kind of science.

People also use terms such as Christian science,
Scientology, Biblical science, Creation science, Vedic
science, Quranic science, Astrological science,
Pseudoscience, etc. It would be interesting to know if
the type of postmodernist confusion that is being
advocated in the above-referenced post, and the one
before it, would also include these entities under its
mishmashed definition of science or scientific theory.

Cheers,

Santosh

[CORNEL DACOSTA]

Hi Santosh

This is to say that I agree with you strongly. I also want to add that in
society we tend to have education that is intended to question things and
enlighten us away from 'primitive' thought. Unfortunately, we also have
indoctrination (most often at an early age to capture adherents for life)
via religion that contrasts significantly from the aim of education.
Unfortunately too, some cannot tell the difference or choose not to.

I am sure I will get some stick for saying this but I welcome it in the
interests of discourse.
Cornel

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.
Orlando

[Jerry Fernandes]

Hello Orlando,
Can u be more specific when you say that Darwanian Evolution was Religion
and not science?
According to dictionary, evolution is a scientific idea that plants and
animals develope and change gradually over a long period of time. As far as
I understood Darwanian Evolution, He said Man evolved from Primates. I
surely would like to know what you meant.

Cheers

Jerry Fernandes

Post by Santosh Helekar
A clear statement of the issue here is that there is
no justification, whatsoever, for teaching religious
beliefs as scientific theories or facts in a science
classroom. This applies to whether science is taught
in a public school, a private school or a school run
by a religious institution.
Cheers,
Santosh

Sorry, I belive that the Darwinian Evolution I was thought in school was
religion not science.

Orlando

[Kevin Saldanha]

Dear Santosh, Fredrick and others,

To put a Canadian perspective on this interesting thread, we have
publicly funded Catholic schools that purport to follow the Provincial
curriculum guidelines for science subjects in high school which says,
among other things of the objectives of module on Evolution in Grade
12 science "By the end of this course, students will: *outline
evidence and arguments pertaining to the origin, development, and
diversity of living organisms on Earth (e.g., evaluate current
evidence that supports the theory of evolution and that feeds the
debate on gradualism and punctuated equilibrium);"
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science1112curr.pdf

Where does Adam and Eve fit in? How can the most important scientific
theory of how we got here be taught with any integrity by an
institution that all but denies the basics of Evolution?

This query was recently submitted as a grant proposal to the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for funding to
study the effect of including Intelligent Design in high school
teaching. The evaluation committee, suffering from the same delusions
that were to be studied, TURNED DOWN THE REQUEST, saying, in effect,
that Intelligent Design was a valid theory!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Alters

If this is the state of education in Canada, we deserve a generation
of God-fearing lemmings.

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.

===
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Creationism versus Evolution


People also use terms such as Christian science,
Scientology, Biblical science, Creation science, Vedic
science, Quranic science, Astrological science,
Pseudoscience, etc. It would be interesting to know if
the type of postmodernist confusion that is being
advocated in the above-referenced post, and the one
before it, would also include these entities under its
mishmashed definition of science or scientific theory.

Cheers,

Santosh

[Santosh Helekar]

Post by angel
Dr Phillip E. Johnson, university of California
calls it is a World view of our culture, a view of
the origin of living things, of the reality of a
creator or unreality of a creator. "The officially
sponsored creation story of our culture" (emphasis
are mine)

The above post has got to be simply an extended flame
bait. It is hard to imagine anybody would seriously
cite a creationist lawyer's opinion and his own
home-baked beliefs as an argument against an
established scientific principle, a biological fact
that is supported by overwhelming evidence.

As far as human evolution is concerned, one of the
most compelling pieces of recent evidence in favor of
the descent of humans from the common ancestor of
non-human primates, namely chimpanzees and bonobos, is
the 98% structural similarity of DNA between the three
species of primates.

What is Phillip Johnson's abstract legal argument
against that physical evidence?

Cheers,

Santosh

Post by angel
I believe it has managed to survive only by
techniques of rethoric and
arguments not real sience, and sometimes even
fraudaulent generalisations. I
call this Darwinian apologetics. Hence my view that
there is no science
here, it is a religion.
.............................................
There is no proof there Man has evolved from
primates, also there is no
proof of any species evolving into another over a
period of time. However
adaption to climatic changes and scores of other
factors, which cause
variations within species without creating a new
species per say, is sold to
us as 'evolution' in Darwinianism.
Orlando