[ RadSafe ] Climate Change, physics and intelligent design

[Jerry Cohen]

Steve,
I think you missed the point of Maury's (or maybe his dog's) alchemy comment .
The idea he meant to convey is that it is wrong to teach scientifiically 
unsupported concepts in our schools as  "facts". A case in point is the teaching 
of AGW in some high schools as an accepted fact.. I have also heard of teaching 
about the horrors of nuclear energy in some high schools without mention of any 
benefits.
Jerry.




________________________________
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List 
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 7:32:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change, physics and intelligent design

Nov. 3

         NO ONE is suggesting that alchemy be taught.  This comment 
is silly and baseless.

Steven Dapra


At 06:52 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:
>Advocates of including Intel Design in the science curricula of our 
>schools will, I suppose, derive great satisfaction from the 
>incorporation of Alchemy into the teaching of chemistry. After all, 
>there should be some fairness in allocating the time given different ideas.
>
>I think I need to review my graduate school notion about the 
>testability of questions or some trivia like that....
>Sadly,
>Maury&Dog
>==================================
>
>Steven Dapra wrote:
>
>>Nov. 2
>>
>>         Some comments below.
>>
>>Steven Dapra
>>
>>At 01:09 PM 11/2/2010, you [Mike Brennan] wrote:
>>
>>>Howard, Intelligent Design is a intellectually dishonest attempt to get
>>>Creationism taught in science classes.  Almost all the major players in
>>>ID were involved in "Scientific Creationism" before it got shot down by
>>>the courts.  In its most basic form ID replaces "God" with "Unknown
>>>Designer (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink)".  I don't claim to understand the
>>>math behind the models of the Big Bang, nor do I claim to know how life
>>>started, but I do know that "God did it" is not a scientifically
>>>verifiable statement.  Adding it in doesn't help any model.
>>
>>
>>         Intelligent Design is an increasingly unwelcome challenge 
>> to the doctrines and dogmas of Darwinism.  I don't know about your 
>> "major players" claim.  I know that many prominent Creation 
>> Scientists warily circle proponents of ID.  I know that "God 
>> didn't do it" is not a scientifically verifiable statement, and 
>> adding it doesn't help any model.
>>
>>>The US has a regulated market economy with a fair amount of government
>>>involvement in infrastructure, but it is by no means a "planned
>>>economy."
>>
>>
>>         The US has less and less of a market economy every day,
>>and more and more of a socialist one.  It may not be a planned economy yet
>>but we are headed in that direction.
>>
>>Steven Dapra
>>
>>[edit everything else in all the e-mails in this thread]



_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu