Comments on: Richard Dawkins v. Bill O’Reilly: Round 2 http://www.openculture.com/2009/10/richard_dawkins_v_bill_oreilly_round_2.html The best free cultural & educational media on the web Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:36:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: shellyk http://www.openculture.com/2009/10/richard_dawkins_v_bill_oreilly_round_2.html#comment-7923 shellyk Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:47:01 +0000 http://www.openculture.com/?p=5255#comment-7923 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....<br>============================================<br><a href="http://auctions.fastrealestate.net" rel="dofollow" rel="nofollow">foreclosed home auctions</a> 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

]]> By: hugodom http://www.openculture.com/2009/10/richard_dawkins_v_bill_oreilly_round_2.html#comment-7900 hugodom Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:30:02 +0000 http://www.openculture.com/?p=5255#comment-7900 Bill O’Reilly is so ridiculous! How this man was a tv show? Only in USA Bill O’Reilly is so ridiculous! How this man was a tv show? Only in USA

]]> By: Hanoch http://www.openculture.com/2009/10/richard_dawkins_v_bill_oreilly_round_2.html#comment-7888 Hanoch Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:32:48 +0000 http://www.openculture.com/?p=5255#comment-7888 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.<br><br>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. 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.

]]> By: Alban Fenle http://www.openculture.com/2009/10/richard_dawkins_v_bill_oreilly_round_2.html#comment-7882 Alban Fenle Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:21:48 +0000 http://www.openculture.com/?p=5255#comment-7882 It really comes down to separation of state and church, doesn't it? It is not the responsibility of schools to educate believers. It really comes down to separation of state and church, doesn't it? It is not the responsibility of schools to educate believers.

]]> By: stephenbarkley http://www.openculture.com/2009/10/richard_dawkins_v_bill_oreilly_round_2.html#comment-7880 stephenbarkley Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:27:03 +0000 http://www.openculture.com/?p=5255#comment-7880 Dang. Why does O'Reilly insist on speaking for believers? It's akin to the latest perpetual motion machine crack-pot speaking for science. Dang. Why does O'Reilly insist on speaking for believers? It's akin to the latest perpetual motion machine crack-pot speaking for science.

]]>