Re: Commentary: Stick to science in classrooms

On Sep 30, 2:46 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie





<rja.carne...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:47 am, Jason Spaceman
<notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Nunn

September 29, 2008 12:00am

SOME academics (Paul Williams, View Point, September 23) don't give
the whole story when they insist only one view of science/origins
should be taught in the classroom.

In his objection to creationism or intelligent design being taught
alongside Darwinian evolutionism, Williams is saying that the
scientific data must be explained to young minds in only one way.

Most scientists and academics believe Darwinian evolutionism is
scientific fact. In this view, scientific concepts and data have to be
expressed within the framework of millions of years and evolution.

So those, like me and countless others in the present and down the
ages, who do not come to the same conclusion from the evidence are, at
the least, viewed suspiciously.

Yes, I am a creationist. I am just as convinced as Sir Isaac Newton
was that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago.

And I've come to that conclusion from the same evidence that convinces
most scientists of the very opposite. Am I biased? Yes. As are those
who start with the presumption that no Creator was involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it athttp://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24414492-27197,00.html

Is anyone aware of Newton's opinion of the age of "the world", the
earth as it may be?  Ussher was before his time but I don't know when
Ussher's calendar became conventional, printed in bibles, etc.  And
Newton's own opinion in religion seems to have been not conventional,
but he kept a lot of that mostly to himself during his life.

It probably is excessively picky to say that an Ussherist in Newton's
day supposed the earth to be 5,700 years old, and currently 6,010
years... I'm not sure when that ticks over to 6,011.  There's probably
a web page.

It would indeed be excessively picky to mention that it is October 23
and even pickier to point out that it is a Julian calendar date.  How
picky is it to further mention that, technically, it is a proleptic
Julian date?

Well, we do know that all those coins with "B.C." dates found in
dinosaur footprints are fakes. :-)

When did we /stop/ having proleptic Julian dates? So to speak.
("When her husband found out.")

.

Quantcast