[atlaw]

"I hate to say it, but it seems clear enough that there are at least a few people at FR who would like to give a monopoly to the "evo" side of the debate, at least as far as educating (indoctrinating) our children is concerned. I wonder how these people square that imperative with the First Amendment...."

Here's that old "let the children decide" argument again. I really don't understand the fascination with this argument. It just seems so liberal and wishy-washy. On the one hand, there seems to be a deep desire amongst the anti-evolutionists to proclaim fundamental truths and absolutes of right, wrong, correct, and incorrect (frankly, something I find rather appealing), but on the other hand there is a contradictory tendency to pull out the liberal chestnut of "one opinion is as good as another" when it comes to teaching science and interpreting scientific evidence.

Isn't it really your opinion that you "would like to give a monopoly to the ["crevo"] side of the debate?" Or do you really think that the evidence is open to just any old interpretation and that the "children" should decide what is true and not true?

[betty boop]

Here's that old "let the children decide" argument again. I really don't understand the fascination with this argument. It just seems so liberal and wishy-washy.

LOL, atlaw! It's not just wishy-washy; it indicates a flight from reality! :^)

I look at it this way: Children are born "little savages" and they must be taught right from wrong and acculturated into the society in which they are to live. Kids don't know enough (yet) to "decide" things for themselves. That's why God gave them parents. But if we leave the decisions to them anyway, they will probably just decide to continue to be little savages. :^)

I'm only half joking here. Thanks for writing!