c.i. wrote-
Quote:spendi, I won't spend the time to go back and look for the statements you made about ID "should be" included with science, but I'll not waste my time.
It would be a waste of time because you won't find any such statements. It is merely an impression you have got by lax reading habits. By my standards you can't read worth a blow.
wande wrote-
Quote:spendi,
This was the "backwards" statement you made. Science does not attempt to dictate what is taught in non-science courses. Since evolutionary theory is scientific, it should be taught in science classes. Non-scientific views such as "intelligent design" may be taught in social studies or comparative religion classes.
We have been through that. Numerous times. It looks as if you didn't follow the arguments or have forgotten them. The classroom is not a sanitised box.
You are at your abstractions again. I know how convenient it is due to the oversimplification involved.
Why don't you, just for once, check up on some of the authors I have pointed to instead of chanting bloody journalese all the time.
Start with Vico. Everybody else with hair on their goolies has done.
Three months of that and you can go to La Mettrie and then to de Sade and you are away. You might be able to figure what the argument you started is all about that way in five years, say.
Superficiality is entirely unsuitable for the determination of educational policy.
I have never come across a serious writer who takes the line you lot do.
