Open Culture - Latest Comments in Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

shellyk — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:47:01 -0000

This site is really full of knowledge. I have read the entire article and I am fully satisfied with stephenbarkley that Why does O&#39Reilly insist on speaking for believers? It&#39s akin to the latest perpetual motion machine crack-pot speaking for science....
============================================
foreclosed home auctions

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

shellyk — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:47:01 -0000

This site is really full of knowledge. I have read the entire article and I am fully satisfied with stephenbarkley that Why does O'Reilly insist on speaking for believers? It's akin to the latest perpetual motion machine crack-pot speaking for science....
============================================
foreclosed home auctions

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

hugodom — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:30:02 -0000

Bill O’Reilly is so ridiculous! How this man was a tv show? Only in USA

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

hugodom — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:30:02 -0000

Bill O’Reilly is so ridiculous! How this man was a tv show? Only in USA

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

Hanoch — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:32:48 -0000

The problem is that science and theology inevitably converge when you discuss the origin of the universe. You simply cannot discuss that subject fully by ruling out the possibility that the universe arose from something other than natural causes.

It seems the reasonable way to deal with this problem in public school science classes is to be clear with the students that science deals strictly with the natural world which can observed through human faculties. The students would be further advised that though arguments and/or evidence for super-natural causes exist, because science classes are limited strictly to natural observations, those ideas will not be discussed.

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

Hanoch — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:32:48 -0000

It seems the reasonable way to deal with this problem in public school science classes is to be clear with the students that science deals strictly with the natural world which can observed through human faculties. The students would be further advised that though arguments and/or evidence for super-natural causes exist, because science classes are limited strictly to natural observations, those ideas will not be discussed.

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

Alban Fenle — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:21:48 -0000

It really comes down to separation of state and church, doesn&#39t it? It is not the responsibility of schools to educate believers.

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

Alban Fenle — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:21:48 -0000

It really comes down to separation of state and church, doesn't it? It is not the responsibility of schools to educate believers.

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

stephenbarkley — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:27:03 -0000

Dang. Why does O&#39Reilly insist on speaking for believers? It&#39s akin to the latest perpetual motion machine crack-pot speaking for science.

Re: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2

Stephen Barkley — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:27:03 -0000

Dang. Why does O'Reilly insist on speaking for believers? It's akin to the latest perpetual motion machine crack-pot speaking for science.