ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

 
	what about coordinating the science and creation with the believe that yes the world is billions of years told based on the facts of fillerenes, isotopes and rock formations and understanding the half life of uranium. on the other hand is it ok to see that perhaps the 6000 years is just when humans as we know it began (after pre-historic humans and cro-magnon humans which most probably have been around for billions of years also). does that settle a possible agreement between the 2 fields? edith piaf
ooh je regrette rie

 je regrette rien" Edith Piaf"C'est L'Amour" Edith Piaf"Le jour ou je ne chanterais plus, je mourrai" Edith Piaf"ReneDescartes:je pense donc je suis <

> De: Clifford Wagner <[log in to unmask]>
> A: [log in to unmask]
> Objet: Re: religion AND science (as opposed to versus)
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:42:34 -0500

> <pre>ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
> *****************************************************************************
> 
> Dear Bill,
> We are all trying to be thoughtful and thorough in our consideration of  
> the complexities of the relationships among religion, spirituality and  
> science.
> I am trying to figure out with all the posts which posts you are  
> complaining about, so I can understand your points.
> 
> My personal life is religious, spiritual and scientific.
> 
>  From a science standpoint I do have a problem with the idea people can  
> pick and choose which ideas they believe in.
> 
>   Science- reliable knowledge about our world- depends on vigorous  
> debate- trying out what ideas best fit the facts as they are known.   
> Yes Charles, I agree with you, science is messy and you are right to  
> call me out- there is some wiggle room.  But it is not unlimited.  We  
> depend on the best ideas, the ones that fit the facts, being the ones  
> we call science: the ones we then work from to push forward  the  
> frontiers of science.  You can't just declare something to be science:  
> it has to meet rigorous criteria.  It has to fit the facts.   I do not  
> "believe" in evolution, Bill.  As I and the majority of biologists  
> understand it evolution fits the facts of the world better than  
> creationism.  It is the present leading science.   And it is the  
> healthy process of science that those that put forward the creationist  
> theory can and do challenge evolution.  This is critical.  You and I  
> don't get to choose evolution or creationism as science.   Science is  
> not what we want, it is what we understand. Under-Stand.  We  
> stand-under science facts holding them up for as long as they hold  
> true- giving them up only when  some new clear truth comes along and  
> renders the previous assumption of science moot.  To the best of my  
> science knowledge creationism has not been able to do that to  
> evolution.
> There are those that disagree.  There is a museum devoted to  
> creationism.  But enough facts pertinent to both creationism and  
> evolution get ignored that the creationism presented is no longer  
> science. In particular, the creationist idea I object to is saying the  
> earth is 6000 years old and trying to bend facts to that.
>   You can't ignore facts.  That is the real point I want to make.  We  
> cannot ignore facts if science is going to be useful.  We tread on very  
> dangerous ground if we allow science to be anything less than what fits  
> the facts as we know them the best.
> That is why I have a problem with creationism.  Yet I have no problem  
> with Intelligent Design as a theory.  It is completely plausible that  
> there is intelligence behind our physical universe.  There are no facts  
> to disprove it.  There are also no facts to prove it, either, but it is  
> possible.
> 
> We cannot  pick and choose which science we want
> 
>  From a religious standpoint I do not have a problem with the idea  
> people can pick and choose which ideas they believe in.  You can  
> believe the world is 6000 years old and that is fine. No problem.  But   
> it is not science.
> 
>    I celebrate here in the United States of America our religious  
> freedom.  I do have deeply held beliefs and I support anyone believing  
> and  practicing their religion as long as they don't tell others what  
> to do, belief -wise.
> 
>   But we as humans, if we are going to keep our quality of life, if we  
> are going to keep our planet healthy through this crunch of human  
> population, our coming oil shortage, our time of global warming, cannot  
> ignore the facts of science.  We can't conveniently declare global  
> warming not real, just because we don't want it to be.  We can't  
> pretend our present infrastructure of oil based transportation is going  
> to be affordable forever.
> 
> We, as Science centers, have an obligation to our society, to our  
> planet, to keep science based in provable facts.  No matter what your  
> religion, your beliefs, we all have to utilize, keep pure and obey the  
> facts of science or risk real catastrophies.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Clifford Wagner
> 
> On Mar 24, 2005, at 4:40 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> 
> > ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology  
> > Centers
> > Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related  
> > institutions.
> > *********************************************************************** 
> > ******
> >
> > Because I am currently still trying to be thoughtful and thorough in my
> > consideration of the complexities of the relationships among religion,
> > spirituality, and science, I have resisted contributions to this  
> > discussion.
> > It doesn't seem the right place to send ideas up the flagpole to see  
> > what
> > reaction they get.
> >
> > I will, however, offer two observations about the discussion itself:
> >
> > 1) I find it somewhat disturbing that some posts are not only treating  
> > a
> > commitment to science as mutually exclusive from a commitment to  
> > religion,
> > but also holding so firmly to beliefs in evolution (or science more  
> > broadly)
> > as to do exactly what some of us accuse those who hold firmly to their
> > religious beliefs of doing: belittle the views of other people who  
> > embrace
> > an alternative view of the world. I think it is unfair to belittle a
> > person's belief system when it leads him to view an event as a "gift  
> > from
> > God" or "designed by God." If we are ever to have real dialogue about  
> > the
> > complexities of the relationships among religion, spirituality, and  
> > science,
> > an outright resistance to (and perhaps even disgust with) alternative  
> > views
> > won't be the way to get there. If we are more committed to a scientific
> > worldview than a religious one, we cannot presume to fully understand  
> > the
> > religious worldview, or even assume that there is one umbrella  
> > religious
> > worldview that is embraced by all those who claim a commitment to
> > "religion."
> >
> > 2) If the people who have suggested a position statement on evolution  
> > are
> > committed to that idea, I think we need to move forward very  
> > cautiously.
> > ASTC represents a wide range of institutions in a wide range of  
> > contexts.
> > While I agree that we need to remain committed to our collective and
> > respective missions, I believe that regional and other contextual  
> > factors
> > would be very important to consider in the development of such a  
> > statement.
> > The issue at hand is greater than "evolution vs. creationism." It  
> > seems to
> > me that the current dialogue is a proxy for "science vs. religion."  
> > I'm not
> > so sure that's not a false dichotomy, and I would hesitate to commit
> > categorically, institutionally, and rigidly to one side of that  
> > dialogue
> > until we are absolutely sure what's being argued and what's at stake.
> >
> > 3) We're far off topic from the discussion of the "Volcanoes" in the  
> > IMAX
> > format, and I am probably taking us further afield. Nevertheless, as
> > institutions respond to the reality of their contexts, I see no  
> > problem with
> > a science center opting not to show a film on the basis of the
> > appropriateness of its content for its audience. I do not see this as
> > "caving in," nor do I see it as a "loss" in what some perceive to be a
> > battle. Rather, I see it as a science center choosing its battles. We  
> > are
> > not evolution centers. We are science centers. The ways in which we  
> > relate
> > science to the public are many and varied and will rely upon the  
> > "entrance
> > dialogue" of the various publics we serve. No one is in a better  
> > position to
> > make those important decisions than the local management of the science
> > centers in each context.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > ***********************************************************************
> > More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
> > Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at  
> > <a href=http://www.astc.org.>http://www.astc.org.</a>> To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
> > message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> 
> ***********************************************************************
> More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
> Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at <a href=http://www.astc.org.>http://www.astc.org.</a>To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
> message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> </pre>
"je ne regrette rien" Edith Piaf"C'est L'Amour" Edith Piaf"Le jour ou je ne chanterais plus, je mourrai" Edith Piaf"ReneDescartes:je pense donc je suis <

C est le moment de dynamiser votre boîte mail en découvrant les offres CaraMail Max et Pro - http://www.caramail.com


***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]