spendius wrote:I have said nothing about nightmarish dystopias.Such ideas never enter my head.Nightmarish for who?You are making a personal value judgement.
You may have said nothing about it, but it is heavily implied from your general distaste of Evolution.
Quote:Exactly. Now you know how I feel about your posts. They're incredibly presumptuous.
If you will show me where I will endevour to correct my crass error and apologise for it.
Right down below:
Quote:Quote:You give too much credit to the power of Evolution over the human mind.
Evolution theory has power over social systems.It operates unhindered in anarchic situations and,for us,Christian theology is a veneer which mitigates some of its effects and those who seek to remove the veneer have to expect the effects.
Rather presumptious, don't you think? You give so much credit to Christian theology, even though you call it a veneer, and state that it is the only thing that stands in between us and all right Nazism. Furthermore, you presume that I wish to have Christian theology removed, yet I do not.
All I wish is that Evolution is taught in biological classes to the utmost, with teachers clearly stating that their lessons will only give them an incomplete view of the big picture of Evolution. I do not wish ID to be taught. I do not wish Creation to be taught. That is all.
Christian theology? Sure, you can teach it if you wish.
Ethics? Sure, you can teach it if you wish. But now that I think about it clearly, perhaps ethics itself should be taught in science, seeing as it is a major factor in scientific research.
However, Christian theology? No way. That goes clearly in religious education and has no bearing on this topic whatsoever.
Ethics, yes. Christian theology, no.
Quote:I can make a scientific case that monogamy is a perversion but I'm not going to because I don't agree that "whether the choices are good or bad is beside the point." The choice between good or bad is the only point as far as I'm concerned.
So, what? I can make a scientific case that polygamy is a perversion.
Now that I think even more clearly than a few minutes ago, I realise that ethics mustn't be taught in the sole realm of science. It must be taught in a separate ethics class as ethics is needed in business as well. A separate ethics class, made compulsory, would be very good, but not in science.
As far as I can tell, you're concerned about the ethics. And certainly, ethics are needed. However, if that is your only concern, then Evolution has nothing to do with it. The problem isn't that Evolution is taught, but that ethics isn't taught.
Once again, from what I can read and understand of your post, your position is nothing to do with the teaching of science but to do with the teaching of ethics.
