Re: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality!
a lurker responds. i think a letter of policy statement coming from ESA is a good idea. i think that it could be done, respectfully, stating that 1) the two fields - science and religion - are fundamentally different, one based on theory and fact grounded by (usually) physical evidence, and the other based primarily on faith in a supreme being of some sort, and that 2) the two should not attempt to resolve/explain each others' questions. if the religionists would be willing to not discredit/disrepect what scientists are trying to do, in our arena of public schools - explain the workings of the universe through OUR ideology - would scientists be willing to let religionists do what they want to do, if kept in their arena of churches/synagogues/worship houses and parochial schools: explain the workings of the universe through their god? greenly, marcus Marcus Ricci, M.S. Urban Conservation Specialist Lucas Soil Water Conservation District 130-A West Dudley Street Maumee, OH 43537 419-893-1966 phone, 419-893-3131 fax work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: What good is it? If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. -- Aldo Leopold, Sand County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There, 1946 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Sparks Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 5:22 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! Okay, this is a good start. What I would suggest is that the ESA field a letter responding to IJCR by stating in, layman's terms, the critical difference between science and religion and why its important not to get confused and why IJCR is a threat to science and possibly even the democratic process since it threatens our national perception of reality. I would be happy to produce a draft if a few ESA members would be interested in helping me with the draft. I or someone else with a PhD and some clout can basically re-iterate SJ Gould's arguments. Jim Sparks On 5/5/07, adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: not sure how far to take your metaphor about trouble down lower. but my point is that religion and science will always argue until there's realization that they are each different states of consciousness. the non-validative, salutary truths of religions need not argue with the sensorimotor, empirical sensory truths of the sciencesbut they do in the United States, as J. Sparks said are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. both science religion seem not to recognize the futility of trying to meet nonmaterial needs (objective constancy spiritual/moral, respectively) by controling material resources. to the degree that both institutionalized religion science employ a politco-navigational compass bent on a dominant instrumental relationship with Nature, I wouldn't be suprised that they don't find more to agree about as their hegemony is replaced by an attitude of respect and communication. Adam Herbert recycling reward consumption - William McDonough -- Forwarded message -- From: Richard Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 4, 2007 9:13 PM Subject: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! To: adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see where you're trying to make trouble down lower? -- *From:* Mammalian Biology [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jim Sparks *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2007 2:35 AM *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! It is not true that science and religion are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. We, as educators, have been far too willing to cop out. Of Western nations, only Turkey is more backwater than us. With comparable literacy rates, we should at least be not far behind the UK. We need to buck up, put up our dukes, and be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality. Sincerely, Jim Sparks Acceptance of Evolution as fact: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html On 5/3/07, adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the ultra-reductionistic out is to accept that religion science will ALWAYS argue because one is based on faith and one is based on fact...why argue? you're using different eyes
Re: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality!
The problem is that it's (almost) always the religionists trying to instigate squabbles with scientists. I know of no scientists who have walked into a church and demand that evolution be included as an alterantive to their preachings. It's always the religionists wanting religion be treated as an equal to science. They constantly challenge established scientific knowledge without provocation, presumably as a result of insecurity about their own. I for one would have no problem if they kept their preachings inside their churches and did not try to interfere with other aspects of lives with them. This goes not only for schools (where science belongs, not religion), but also for politics, public policy making, etc. Many scientists maintain appropriate levels of respect for religion and religionists, but the reciprocal is virtually non-existent. George Wang On Thu, 24 May 2007 09:30:17 -0400, Marcus Ricci [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a lurker responds. i think a letter of policy statement coming from ESA is a good idea. i think that it could be done, respectfully, stating that 1) the two fields - science and religion - are fundamentally different, one based on theory and fact grounded by (usually) physical evidence, and the other based primarily on faith in a supreme being of some sort, and that 2) the two should not attempt to resolve/explain each others' questions. if the religionists would be willing to not discredit/disrepect what scientists are trying to do, in our arena of public schools - explain the workings of the universe through OUR ideology - would scientists be willing to let religionists do what they want to do, if kept in their arena of churches/synagogues/worship houses and parochial schools: explain the workings of the universe through their god? greenly, marcus Marcus Ricci, M.S. Urban Conservation Specialist Lucas Soil Water Conservation District 130-A West Dudley Street Maumee, OH 43537 419-893-1966 phone, 419-893-3131 fax work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality!
not sure how far to take your metaphor about trouble down lower. but my point is that religion and science will always argue until there's realization that they are each different states of consciousness. the non-validative, salutary truths of religions need not argue with the sensorimotor, empirical sensory truths of the sciencesbut they do in the United States, as J. Sparks said are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. both science religion seem not to recognize the futility of trying to meet nonmaterial needs (objective constancy spiritual/moral, respectively) by controling material resources. to the degree that both institutionalized religion science employ a politco-navigational compass bent on a dominant instrumental relationship with Nature, I wouldn't be suprised that they don't find more to agree about as their hegemony is replaced by an attitude of respect and communication. Adam Herbert recycling reward consumption - William McDonough -- Forwarded message -- From: Richard Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 4, 2007 9:13 PM Subject: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! To: adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see where you're trying to make trouble down lower? -- *From:* Mammalian Biology [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jim Sparks *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2007 2:35 AM *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! It is not true that science and religion are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. We, as educators, have been far too willing to cop out. Of Western nations, only Turkey is more backwater than us. With comparable literacy rates, we should at least be not far behind the UK. We need to buck up, put up our dukes, and be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality. Sincerely, Jim Sparks Acceptance of Evolution as fact: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html On 5/3/07, adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the ultra-reductionistic out is to accept that religion science will ALWAYS argue because one is based on faith and one is based on fact...why argue? you're using different eyes to see the same thing On 5/2/07, Jim Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you seen this? A peer reviewed journal for young earth creationism! Please tell me that someone out there is preparing some stiff opposition to this. When this thing gets off the ground it will do a pretty good job of undermining scientific method and credibility. This may be even worse than recent scandals involving pharmaceutical industry funding of product research or petroleum industry scientists contradicting climatologists on global warming. Journals on the whole are losing their credibility because of various financial entanglements in a few key fields. This current attack is not going to help ecology and evolutionary biology one bit. As goes the reputation of journals, so goes the voices of reason. Can anyone think of a way to defend Aristotelian logic or all we all going to just watch placidly as the age of reason slips into the shadowy recesses of a new, albeit perhaps more subtle Dark Ages. Sincerely, Jim Sparks http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html *International Journal for Creation Research * The Institute for Creation Research is pleased to announce the inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary scientific research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical framework. Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted by experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts. It is our hope that you will be encouraged in your study of creation science issues that remain at the forefront of education and research. Andrew A. Snelling Editor-in-Chief -- James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. Freelance Ecology 4530 E. Seminary Ave. Richmond, VA 23227 804.426.2479 (cell) -- James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. Freelance Ecology 4530 E. Seminary Ave. Richmond, VA 23227 804.426.2479 (cell) Quis custodiet ipso custodes? -Juvenal -- James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. Freelance Ecology 4530 E. Seminary Ave. Richmond, VA 23227 804.426.2479 (cell) Quis custodiet ipso custodes? -Juvenal
Re: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality!
Okay, this is a good start. What I would suggest is that the ESA field a letter responding to IJCR by stating in, layman's terms, the critical difference between science and religion and why its important not to get confused and why IJCR is a threat to science and possibly even the democratic process since it threatens our national perception of reality. I would be happy to produce a draft if a few ESA members would be interested in helping me with the draft. I or someone else with a PhD and some clout can basically re-iterate SJ Gould's arguments. Jim Sparks On 5/5/07, adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: not sure how far to take your metaphor about trouble down lower. but my point is that religion and science will always argue until there's realization that they are each different states of consciousness. the non-validative, salutary truths of religions need not argue with the sensorimotor, empirical sensory truths of the sciencesbut they do in the United States, as J. Sparks said are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. both science religion seem not to recognize the futility of trying to meet nonmaterial needs (objective constancy spiritual/moral, respectively) by controling material resources. to the degree that both institutionalized religion science employ a politco-navigational compass bent on a dominant instrumental relationship with Nature, I wouldn't be suprised that they don't find more to agree about as their hegemony is replaced by an attitude of respect and communication. Adam Herbert recycling reward consumption - William McDonough -- Forwarded message -- From: Richard Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 4, 2007 9:13 PM Subject: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! To: adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see where you're trying to make trouble down lower? -- *From:* Mammalian Biology [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jim Sparks *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2007 2:35 AM *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! It is not true that science and religion are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. We, as educators, have been far too willing to cop out. Of Western nations, only Turkey is more backwater than us. With comparable literacy rates, we should at least be not far behind the UK. We need to buck up, put up our dukes, and be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality. Sincerely, Jim Sparks Acceptance of Evolution as fact: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html On 5/3/07, adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the ultra-reductionistic out is to accept that religion science will ALWAYS argue because one is based on faith and one is based on fact...why argue? you're using different eyes to see the same thing On 5/2/07, Jim Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you seen this? A peer reviewed journal for young earth creationism! Please tell me that someone out there is preparing some stiff opposition to this. When this thing gets off the ground it will do a pretty good job of undermining scientific method and credibility. This may be even worse than recent scandals involving pharmaceutical industry funding of product research or petroleum industry scientists contradicting climatologists on global warming. Journals on the whole are losing their credibility because of various financial entanglements in a few key fields. This current attack is not going to help ecology and evolutionary biology one bit. As goes the reputation of journals, so goes the voices of reason. Can anyone think of a way to defend Aristotelian logic or all we all going to just watch placidly as the age of reason slips into the shadowy recesses of a new, albeit perhaps more subtle Dark Ages. Sincerely, Jim Sparks http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html *International Journal for Creation Research * The Institute for Creation Research is pleased to announce the inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary scientific research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical framework. Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted by experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the
