Is it a shame that Bush did not evolve into a thinking and feeling human being. If ever an abortion was necessary.
au1929 wrote:Is it a shame that Bush did not evolve into a thinking and feeling human being. If ever an abortion was necessary.
Yes, yes, the president has no thoughts or feelings. In fact no one who disagrees with you has thoughts or feelings, except to the limited extent necessary to support base motives.
Teaching magic in science classrooms is a mistake which our descendants will laugh at.
au1929 wrote:Is it a shame that Bush did not evolve into a thinking and feeling human being. If ever an abortion was necessary.
Let's not go overboard here.
Brandon
Quote:Teaching magic in science classrooms is a mistake which our descendants will laugh at.
I suppose you would rather have the farce and poison called religion taught as science. And of course only your religion.
Brandon9000 wrote:Teaching magic in science classrooms is a mistake which our descendants will laugh at.
Alchemy vs Chemistry, who can put on a better show. Those black robes and fancy pointed hats are a whole lot more impressive than white lab coats. If it comes down to glitz and glamour as root of public attention, we could be in trouble. Of course, that will only impress people up to the point at which someone has to build a bridge or an airplane, then real science is going to have a shocking revival.
au1929 wrote:Brandon
Quote:Teaching magic in science classrooms is a mistake which our descendants will laugh at.
I suppose you would rather have the farce and poison called religion taught as science. And of course only your religion.
Au, I really doubt that Brandon of all people is interested in having religion taught in science class. E_Brown and Brandon are some of our staunchest supporters of rigorous science and detail.
If that is so I must have misread or misinterpreted his response.
For the record, I am an atheist. In my opinion, evolution is not merely correct, but pretty much just on the face of it correct. However, unlike religion, it can be demonstrated with logical deduction, simple examples from the world which are not susceptible simpler explanations, and experiment. All evolutionary theory really says is that (1) traits which enhance a creature's survival tend to survive in the gene pool better than traits which are worth less for survival, and (2) new traits enter the gene pool occasionally from mutation. The rest is pretty much straight deduction.
All valid scientific theories deserve equal time in science class, not supernaturally based theories.
The trend among some school boards is to issue evolution disclaimers or "teach the controversy". These people are singling out the theory of evolution in a very dishonest way.
wandeljw wrote:The trend among some school boards is to issue evolution disclaimers or "teach the controversy". These people are singling out the theory of evolution in a very dishonest way.
They also appear to be unaware of the scientific use of the terms "theory" and "hypothesis." Specifically, in science, a "theory" is a model which is regarded as having been proven.
Brandon9000 wrote:All valid scientific theories deserve equal time in science class, not supernaturally based theories.
Amen to that. Heh heh heh
I guess I just have never quite grasped why it is necessarily poison for children to learn that there's such a thing as believing in a supernatural God, or to learn the particular tenets of a representative number of those belief systems, or to learn that vast numbers of people hold these things as important. The kneejerk revulsion that some of the "logical and scientific" thinkers seem to have just serves to make the other side dig their trenches deeper. Just as I have no problem with any child learning the "irrefutable" truths of science - I think it's pretty much true "on the face of it" that we can best prepare children to think for themselves by offering them the fullest possible picture of their world. Their world will include people who believe both ways. They will have to work with and live with people who believe both ways. They may marry someone who believes other than they do. It seems a no-brainer to me that our thrust as reasonable adults shold be trying to reconcile a peacable coexistence of the two ways of thinking or believing.
Smart as the "scientific" folks are, they can't seem to figure that out. Or, if they do figure it out, it doesn't deter their singlemindedness in trying to eradicate all mention of God from schools.
snood wrote:I guess I just have never quite grasped why it is necessarily poison for children to learn that there's such a thing as believing in a supernatural God, or to learn the particular tenets of a representative number of those belief systems, or to learn that vast numbers of people hold these things as important. The kneejerk revulsion that some of the "logical and scientific" thinkers seem to have just serves to make the other side dig their trenches deeper. Just as I have no problem with any child learning the "irrefutable" truths of science - I think it's pretty much true "on the face of it" that we can best prepare children to think for themselves by offering them the fullest possible picture of their world. Their world will include people who believe both ways. They will have to work with and live with people who believe both ways. They may marry someone who believes other than they do. It seems a no-brainer to me that our thrust as reasonable adults shold be trying to reconcile a peacable coexistence of the two ways of thinking or believing.
Smart as the "scientific" folks are, they can't seem to figure that out. Or, if they do figure it out, it doesn't deter their singlemindedness in trying to eradicate all mention of God from schools.
Congratulations on having utterly ignored the argument being made. We have argued only that supernatural theories should not be taught in a science class.
snood, There are many scientist-christians and christian-scientists; most agree that "creatiionism-ID" do not belong in our schools. You should talk to them - it seems for your answers. They can probably repond in your language.
snood wrote:I guess I just have never quite grasped why it is necessarily poison for children to learn that there's such a thing as believing in a supernatural God
Nobody is worried about letting children know that religion exists in the world around them. But in *science* class, only things which are valid *science* should be taught.
If the kids want to take a theology class that's fine. If they want to take a philosophy class that's fine. If they want to talk about their beliefs over lunch that's fine. But if the state wants to mandate introduction to non-scientific theories in science class, that's not fine. It's stupid.
Points taken. But your replies to mine demonstrate the hubris to which I referred.
Besides, y'all can't really deny that some of you want to remove all mention of religion from schools.
Yes, at this point in this thread (and it has moved around, if you followed the thread from the start) the argument is over the finer point of whether religion should be taught in science class. But I have seen the argument in this thread and elsewhere that religion doesn't belong in schools - period.
snood wrote:Points taken. But your replies to mine demonstrate the hubris to which I referred.
I'm sorry. Where did you infer Hubris in anything we wrote?
(hu·bris n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance)
As far as I know, we're just trying to make our point clearly. It's not hubris to try hard to clarify a point of discussion.
