Replies

So far, no one has bitten on my Ivan Sanderson Astrology stuff. I'm reposting here on this thread.

To: bobdsmith

Interesting stuff. But, since I'm not an astronomer, I have no idea whether this stuff follows the scientific method. My suspicion from the tone of your post is that it isn't all that scientific.

That's one of the problems I have with the whole debate on ID/abiogenesis/evolution. It very quickly moves to areas where the high priests need to take over. I have heard in the christian circles in the silicon valley that there is relentless pressure to keep one's mouth shut so that funding is not at risk.

OK, so let's assume that the astrology stuff does follow the scientific method. Then it should be allowed in the classroom. If it doesn't follow scientific method, it should not be allowed.
23 posted on 08/20/2005 8:22:43 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: bobdsmith; SunkenCiv

I think the guy's name was Ivan Anderson, and I found a reference to his theory on the web:

http://www.present-truth.org/psychic_roulette_2.htm

[snip]

Ivan Sanderson, who debunks modern astrology completely, thinks he has stumbled upon the real origin of the zodiac.

He has traced the zodiac, in his research, back to the ancient Sumerians. He says it had nothing to do with ancient astrology, that it was nothing more than a road map such as you might get from an oil company today. In other words, it was simply traveling direcútions for anybody setting out in any direction from the head of the Persian Gulf.

He explains, "If you copy the zodiac wheel, as used today, on a piece of clear plastic; stick a pin through its hub, and then stab that pin on to the home-base of the Sumerians [and he supplies a map with the zodiac superimposed] you will immediately see what this is all about. . . .

"Imagine therefore that you are residing at the head of the Perúsian Gulf about 6,000 years ago. You will find that whichever way you might have wanted to travel from there-except down the sliver of the Gulf itself -you would have to traverse several hundred miles of desert before hitting a coast. Now, all deserts look alike, and especially flat ones. Unlike maritime navigation, there are no steady winds, currents, coasts, tides, or other even fairly stable natural phenomena to aid one. On deserts, where the winds can come from anywhere and at any time, and where there are no landmarks, the only things you have to guide you are the stars.

So, the Sumerians devised a star map for desert travelers, divided it into twelve segments, and gave each a simple symbol so that illiterate cameleers, horsemen, donkey-drivers, or plain foot-sloggers could keep going in at least the correct general direction that they desired. And the Sumerians were consummate astronomers, geographers, and also most knowledgeable students of international affairs:' He says that Sumerians seem to have been basically an economic empire, interested in trade and commerce. So they designated each land by its principal product.

He proceeds to illustrate. "So, take your zodiacal wheel and center it on Sumeria, and then arrange it so that the north-to-south line runs due north between Capricorn to the west and Sagittarius to the east. Imagine then that you are a merchant starting out from Sumeria to prosecute trade to the northwest-of-north. You will point up the left-hand side of the Mesopotamian valley and you hit the mountains and, if you get there, what will impress you most? Goats-both wild mountain goats, ibexes, and domesticated goats, since the last were the first animals to be domesticated -and by just those people you will find living there. Thus, the land of the 'Capúricorns' or 'Goat-horned Ones.' Further, to aid you in your travels the scientists back home have given you a pretty picture of a bunch of stars that you must find at night and which they have linked together by straight lines to form a goat."

He covers the other eleven sectors in equal detail, and then says, "Thus, having come around the full circle of the so-called zodiac, we find ourselves holding but one conclusion. This is that the original zodiac was, to early land travelers, what the later wind roses were to mariners. . . . However, the travelers who used this map were illiterate and so had to be given simple symbols-a mountain goat seen in profile for Capricorn; a ram seen from the front for Aries; and so forth. Having done this, the priests of Sumeria, who were true astronomers, took a bunch of stars that could be recognized in each segment, joined them up arbitrarily with lines to look like goats or sheep or oxen, and then trained these travelers to spot them, and so to send them safely on their way...

I'm going to ignore the rest of your fingers-in-the-ears restatement
****First of all, it's not "fingers-in-the-ear", but thank you for the obvious ridicule which suggests that you are a true holy warrior for your chosen philosophy. Secondly, it is more than a restatement, it points out an obvious difference in the level of political authority on a social policy issue. Is it that you really can't see that?

and just say this. What gets taught in science class should be reflective of the current understanding of science as reflected in the professional journals, etc.
***I agree with what you're saying, for the most part. But I draw the line at philosophy; I consider evo/abiog/creat to be philosophical in nature. From the level of someone with an engineering degree, the Ian Musgrave article seems pretty advanced for some high school kid to learn in his first biology class. Origins is really more suitable for a 2nd year bio class, if at all (better suited for philosophy). All this attention on getting it into the first bio class a kid takes is just indoctrination attempts for adherents to a philosophy.

It is not particularly legitimate to worry about what parents think or even the current President thinks.
***Very interesting. I happen to think that it IS legitimate to worry about what parents think, and I imagine most of the electorate in the United States probably agrees. Am I missing something here, should I repeat that this is becoming a social policy discussion? Are you saying that you don't agree that it's becoming a social policy discussion? That is true head-in-the-sand thinking, so I doubt that is what you're saying. Perhaps you think that since the president doesn't hold a science degree, his opinion is invalid? That's where you're wrong, and he's gonna drive a truck right through that opening you leave him. I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.

For sure, the history of life on Earth is what it is and will not depend on your vote one way or the other.
***True enough. But the funding of scientific investigation of that history of life will greatly depend on the president and his policies.