Comments on: Isn’t It Interesting That… http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/ The world according to a hula hooping, TKD black-belt wearing, radio show producing physiologist with aspirations of science journalism Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:28:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Kirsten Sanford http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/#comment-318 Kirsten Sanford Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:58:45 +0000 http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/#comment-318 Kevin, I'm quite aware of the theological differences between Catholics and Evangelical Christians. I've posted on the papal decrees of John Paul II in the <a href=http://www.kirstensanford.com/2005/08/12/papal-perplexment/ rel="nofollow">past</a>. My head hasn't exploded yet. ;) Thanks for your comments! Kevin, I’m quite aware of the theological differences between Catholics and Evangelical Christians. I’ve posted on the papal decrees of John Paul II in the past. My head hasn’t exploded yet. ;)

Thanks for your comments!

]]> By: Kevin Kitura http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/#comment-312 Kevin Kitura Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:43:49 +0000 http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/#comment-312 There is not much to figure out, he is talking about the empirical scientific method which is basically using tools to measure and analyze the world around us. The problem is that in order to properly apply the scientific method you need a fundamental understanding of Philosophy which is the study of thought and logic. Philosophy literally from Greek means Love of Wisdom. There is a great article by Doug McManaman called “What in the World is Philosophy” I recommend reading it, as it is a short article and well shed a lot of light on the whole subject. (http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/F00027452/F00027453/whatisphil.html) If you are real keener you can check this out, its Doug McManaman’s series called "An Introduction to Philosophy for Young People" which is all online for your reading convience. (If you don’t have a text to speech reader, now is the time to get one. I found Ultra Hal text to speech reader to be the best, it’s perfect for documents like this).(http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/ph/ph_01philosophyyouth1.html) Now everyone repeat after me. Catholics don’t have a problem with the Theroy of Evolution. I can’t speak for the rest of the 32 000 registered Christian denominations in the United States because they are not of one mind on any subject never mind the “Theroy of Evolution”. Not like anything they say is important any way as they lack St. Peter’s Primacy over the Church. On October 22, 1996 John Paul II addresed the topic of the “Theroy of Evolution” while adressing the Pontifical Academy of Science. (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm) He basicly said the Church had no problem with the theroy as long as kept with in the limitations of science and the emprical scientific method. The Church only has problem with it when it is taken beyond that. Oh Man! I wish I could watch Dr. Kirsten try to read John Paul II. I would be fun to see if her cranium exploded. Just kidding Kirsten, just take deep breaths, in with the good air out with the bad air and you will make through just fine. PAX CHRISTI, Kevin There is not much to figure out, he is talking about the empirical scientific method which is basically using tools to measure and analyze the world around us. The problem is that in order to properly apply the scientific method you need a fundamental understanding of Philosophy which is the study of thought and logic. Philosophy literally from Greek means Love of Wisdom. There is a great article by Doug McManaman called “What in the World is Philosophy” I recommend reading it, as it is a short article and well shed a lot of light on the whole subject. (http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/F00027452/F00027453/whatisphil.html)

If you are real keener you can check this out, its Doug McManaman’s series called “An Introduction to Philosophy for Young People” which is all online for your reading convience. (If you don’t have a text to speech reader, now is the time to get one. I found Ultra Hal text to speech reader to be the best, it’s perfect for documents like this).(http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/ph/ph_01philosophyyouth1.html)

Now everyone repeat after me. Catholics don’t have a problem with the Theroy of Evolution. I can’t speak for the rest of the 32 000 registered Christian denominations in the United States because they are not of one mind on any subject never mind the “Theroy of Evolution”. Not like anything they say is important any way as they lack St. Peter’s Primacy over the Church.

On October 22, 1996 John Paul II addresed the topic of the “Theroy of Evolution” while adressing the Pontifical Academy of Science. (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm) He basicly said the Church had no problem with the theroy as long as kept with in the limitations of science and the emprical scientific method. The Church only has problem with it when it is taken beyond that.

Oh Man! I wish I could watch Dr. Kirsten try to read John Paul II. I would be fun to see if her cranium exploded. Just kidding Kirsten, just take deep breaths, in with the good air out with the bad air and you will make through just fine.

PAX CHRISTI,

Kevin

]]> By: Mickey http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/#comment-303 Mickey Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:04:44 +0000 http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/#comment-303 I personally would like to see it forbidden to give the benefits of that technology to those who don't accept the science on which it was based. Don't accept the factuality of evolution? Sorry, no gene therapy or antibiotics for you. Don't believe in the laws of optics? You don't get to have glasses. Don't accept the scientific method as being the best means of analyzing the physical world? You don't get to go to a real doctor, just the quack who sells snake oil. Yeah, I'm a cynic, what can I say. I was raised in the Bible Belt, and that leaves scars. I personally would like to see it forbidden to give the benefits of that technology to those who don’t accept the science on which it was based.

Don’t accept the factuality of evolution? Sorry, no gene therapy or antibiotics for you.
Don’t believe in the laws of optics? You don’t get to have glasses.
Don’t accept the scientific method as being the best means of analyzing the physical world? You don’t get to go to a real doctor, just the quack who sells snake oil.

Yeah, I’m a cynic, what can I say. I was raised in the Bible Belt, and that leaves scars.

]]> By: Sherman Dorn http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/#comment-298 Sherman Dorn Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:16:08 +0000 http://www.kirstensanford.com/2008/01/07/isnt-it-interesting-that/#comment-298 I wish I could figure that one out, too. In my field (history of ed), most of the research on how curriculum is politicized focuses on social science and humanities issues. There's a good book by Kim Tolley from a few years ago, <a href="http://worldcat.org/oclc/50184826&referer=brief_results" rel="nofollow">The Science Education of Girls</a>, that starts to address the history of science education, but there's much more that could be done. I wish I could figure that one out, too. In my field (history of ed), most of the research on how curriculum is politicized focuses on social science and humanities issues. There’s a good book by Kim Tolley from a few years ago, The Science Education of Girls, that starts to address the history of science education, but there’s much more that could be done.

]]>