Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath (Dover, PA School Board)

[AJC]

Pat Robertson does have a knack for engaging mouth, inserting foot, then engaging brain. That being said he does point out what is often overlooked.

Some years ago there were stabbings in one of our local high schools. They had a meeting of faculty and staff. One of the history teachers at that school is a well known Baptist preacher. At the meeting they asked him to pray for peace at that school. He said he would, but pointed out that it is odd that he is only asked to pray for that school when there is trouble.

Pat Robertson may be wrong, and partially crazy, but he does make a point.

AJC :tsktsk:

 

[steveandersen]

MikeWM:

Indeed. As I said elsewhere, I think there ought to be a little bit of philosophy of science taught in school, so people can recognise what is science and what isn’t. And ID would be an interesting example in such a class

Mike

Since scientific theories and philosophical theses have different levels of proof associated with them and start from vastly places, it would be out of place in a science class

It would be akin to teach verb conjugation in an arithmetic class

If you want to teach philosophy then teach philosophy

As regards Mr. Robertson I think he is a prime example of the “give ‘em enough rope” principle.
just ignore him

 

[Franze]

The wrath of God! He is a prophet, isn´t it! oh My God.

 

[Jennifer123]

Guar Fan:

I realize that this is a common argument, but it really is based upon a misunderstanding of the relationship between facts and theories.

Facts are phenomena that have been observed or verified. Note the use of past tense - you can identify a fact only “after the fact”. Theories, on the otherhand, are generalizations based upon facts. They are ideas and as such can not be observed .

We commonly rely on theories in our everyday life. We don’t stick our hand into a fire because of the theory that doing so would burn us. This is a generalization based upon past experiences (or the experience of others).

We rely on past facts, not certain knowledge of future events, to guide our behavior. When we say we know that putting our hand into flames will burn our hand, we are stating a theory… not a fact.

The same relationship between theory and facts exists no matter how exalted (or lowly) the idea. Our theory is that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Its not a fact… because it hasn’t happened. When we say that the sun rises in the east, we are stating a theory not a fact.

I stand by what I said, and while I didn’t major in a science, I am a college educated person, from a pretty decent school, well aware of scientific principle. Since I don’t want to hijack this thread any more than already has been done, I won’t bring up any more points about ID vs. Evolution, or the theories thereof, it’s more philosophical anyway I guess.

 

[MikeWM]

steveandersen:

Since scientific theories and philosophical theses have different levels of proof associated with them and start from vastly places, it would be out of place in a science class

I don’t agree, even though I see where you’re coming from. I think knowing what science is (and isn’t) leads to a greater appreciation of science.

I’m not suggesting spending a lot of time on it, but a little could be helpful.

Mike