From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:52:50 GMT
Distribution: world, usa, na
Organization: Texas Instruments

In article <1992Sep2.010532.23161@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> Doug Page says;
|> 
|> > I see what you are saying, "the only moral thing to teach is amorality".
|> > Sounds "logical" doesn't it?
|> 
|> No, I didn't say that...
|> 

Yes you did, and are doing here your very next sentence says in effect to
teach ammorality!

|> How about not teaching morality, and letting the parents teach it at home?

It is impossible to not teach morality in schools.  From the relatively minor
"don't be late to class" to the major "don't kill your classmates", morals are
"forced" on students.  If they don't play by the rules (i.e., morals), then
they don't graduate.

|> Or would you prefer that the government, or it's representatives (teachers)
|> instill their morality on your kids?

Precisely the point which you ignored in my previous post.  Under the guise of
not "establishing a state religion", public schools have been forcing secular
humanism on students, whether or not their parents agreed with the religion.

|> 
|> Of course, this will probably devolve into a claim that science is a
|> religion...   This is a silly claim, generaly made by religionists who feel
|> bad because their particular form of voodoo is not being forced onto the
|> kids of today...    Science is knowledge (which fundies tend to think is
|> evil per se').  What MORAL choices you make with that knowledge is
|> not science, that is philosophy, ethics, religion, etc...   

True science is not a religion, however, there are many things called
"science" today which have little to do with the scientific method.  I
remember a NOVA that was first broadcast a couple of years ago that provided
~30 minutes each to "creation scientists and evolutionists".  Ironically, it
was the "evolutionists" whos' arguments (what few they presented) were based
not on data collected, not on repeatable experiments, not even on theoretical
proposals but, rather on "what so-and-so believes, I believe" and calling the
"creation scientists" names.  On the other hand, it was the "creation
scientists" who presented the data that they collected, the experiments that
they had performed, and the theories that they had.  I am not saying that they
"creation scientists" are correct in their studies.  What I am saying is that
the so-called "leading evolutionists" presented what amounted to religious
arguments for their view of the world.  Similarly, a later NOVA regarding the
unified theory discussed the various "camps" of belief.  These "camps" were
represented by grad students and faculty at leading universities.  It was NOVA
who had to present the theories.  The "camps" simply argued who was right
based on their faith in their favorite theoretician.  To say that science is
not a religion should be true, but often isn't as students are taught less
"how" to think and more "what" to think.

I did not say that science is evil.  I simply pointed out that the untruths
that you implied were the result of religion were actually from the
information taught by the leading scientists of the day.  The Puritans were
easily "fundies", and yet it was they who founded the first school of higher
learning in this country in 1638.  Science is not knowledge but, rather, the
search for knowledge.  The point that I was making in my previous post was
that the sum total of human knowledge is limited and as such will often be
either incomplete or just downright wrong.  Freon R-12 was once considered an
"ideal" chemical in that it was virtually as safe as water in the scientific
community.  As you well know, much of the scientific community is now calling
for worldwide restrictions on its sale.  Today's knowledge is often tomorrows
ignorance, therefore, to build ethics and, yes, religion on scientific
knowledge alone is dangerous at best.

|> 
|> Sure,  no science is 100% complete...   so we can poke holes in
|> science.  For example, some people seem to have trouble grasping
|> the fact that todays paradigm can be tossed out tomorrow in the light
|> of a better paradigm or new evidence.  That doesn't mean that 
|> science qua science is flawed... in fact, this constant revision is
|> one of the strongest most important parts of science.   Only religion
|> works froma  body of "revealed truth".   Science admist that it makes
|> mistakes...  in fact, it is required for advancement.   Other wise we
|> would come to a dilemma wherein we could either never advance a new
|> paradigm until it was 100% non-refutable (never),  or we could
|> never be allowed to refute a paradigm once we had accepted it...
|> 
|> Either case leads to the sort of stagnation we see in Iran...

I am not anti-science as you imply.  For that matter, neither are most of the
"fundies" that I know.  My point was that what is on occasion called "science"
today is nothing more than a front for promoting a world view.  It is
interesting that "creation scientists" are scorned for having a preconceived
idea of truth as they perform their research.  At the same time there is 
so-called "scientific research" which implies that some parts of the
brains of homosexuals are a different size than that of hetrosexuals and thus
"proved" homosexuals were born homosexuals rather than being a product of
their pschological environment.  This was reported as "scientific
research" nation wide.  Never mind that other research appears to show that
AIDS attacks the central nervous system causing it to deteriorate in both
homosexuals and hetrosexuals with the disease.  Slop is slop and science
is science and each should be treated as such

|> 
|> Which, I think would suit a lot of Fundies just fine.   Hog tie
|> science and technology,  make it subservient to revealed doctrine,
|> and move us firmly back into the dark ages.
|> 
|> No thank you Mr Fundie
|> 
|> Scince has given us antibiotics, medical proceedures, technology, space
|> warnings of hurricanes, transportation, etc...  (did usenet come from
|> the bible?   Did your terminal?)
|> 
|> What has the bible given us?  Some vague and questionable moral precepts... 
|> on which we have based everything from the love of Sister Theresa to the 
|> evil of Torquemada...     I could agree to the former,  but we
|> don't need another Spanish Inquisition, no thank you...

The Bible did not give us the Spanish Inquisition, but the power that one
church/state had which had and abused.  The Spanish Inquisition had about as
much to do with what the Bible actually teaches as the McCarthy-ism of the
1950s had to do with the Constitution.  Is the Constitution a useless document
because it "gives" us such inconsistencies.

|> 
|> How do you feel about the inquisition?   
|> 
|> Science is a way to gain knowledge... to try to make life better for mankind
|> now.  Fundamentalism is a way to cut mankind off at the knees, on a vague
|> hope for pie in the sky...
|> 
|> Fooey on you.

I noticed that you happened to ignore the fact that "religion" is being taught
each day in the public schools.  The reality is that the secular humanism
being taught/promoted in our public schools cuts mankind off a lot lower than
the knees.  It teaches on the one hand "my rights", but places no value on
human life.  Under SH, if I view that your quality of life is unacceptable,
then I may put you out of your missery (i.e., you have no right to that life).
At the same time, you can't tell me that my quality of life isn't good enough.
Is it any wonder that selfishness has been so rampant in this nation since the
mid 70s ?  These truly are the Maypo generations.

I'll return your fooey whenever you would like it back.

The fact still remains that this nation was founded on Christian ideals.  It
is from these ideals that the founding fathers derived our "rights" of
freedom of speech and freedom OF religion.  You have your views and you have
a right to express them, and so do I.

*** The opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
*** employer.                                                             ***