Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
-- To me, it is fairly obvious that Christian groups are the ones trying to 'indoctrinate kids into religion'. And, --- that the state is simply obliged to 'make no law respecting' any establishments of religions.
Hi tpaine! WRT to Louisiana Family Forum: I dislike the word "force." Other than that, I think LFF is simply exercising its First Amendment rights; i.e., to peaceably assemble for the purpose of petitioning the government to rectify a grievance. The grievance is that the government is in violation of its First Amendment responsibility to uphold the second phrase of the "religion clause": the LFF wishes to recall the government to its constitutional obligations. (These are all state matters anyway, it seems to me; so we really need to look at state constitutions to see what is permissible within a given jurisdiction.)
The religion clause has two parts -- the first one says that the government may not "establish" any particular religious sect as a national religion; the second part bars the government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (i.e., the free exercise of religion).
What are we really talking about here? IMHO, no one is seeking to "establish religion" here. What is at stake is the ending of a certain monopoly in educational instruction of the life sciences in the public schools.
Personally, I have no objection to the theory of evolution being taught in the public schools. I strongly doubt LFF is trying to censor it, they are just looking for "equal time" in what amounts to a key cultural as well as scientific debate.
However, I would like to see other theories that man has evolved dealing with issues of origins taught right along side of it (e.g., ID, Punk-Eek, even Genesis as a "baseline theory" if you will). Present all relevant information fairly, in a balanced way, and you will simply be carrying out the mandate of excellence in education.
People who have an opportunity to work through a wide variety of materials, and drawing their own conclusions therefrom -- this is the only way I know of to really and truly "learn" anything -- are getting "educated," not "indoctrinated."
Yes, BB, but little school children? Even their teachers are mostly incompetent to do what you suggest. The people most able to weigh the evidence and sift through competing explanations are those who have already learned the basic material and are now advancing the state of their science. I'm talking about research PhD types, who have the intellect and the educational background to do what you suggest. I fear that if you toss all that stuff at kids in school they'll come away totally confused.
Huh? That is a false conclusion. You are applying your empirical standard again. Empiricism as I have said over and over and over again, must be proven to be a valid system to test a proposition before it can be used. It is not. You cannot prove that only things that are measurable are real - I demand that you prove that prove that "only that which is measurable is real." Prove it empirically.
You are half-educated in logic. When I say "gee, doesn't this here thing look pretty similar to that there thing, I am drawing on the powers of analogy to suggest a possible relationship. This is called analogical reasoning, and is not subject to the law of the excluded middle. Look it up. Scientific theorizing leans heavily on this process. Since I am not arguing from absolutely established facts, such as to be grouped in sets by their attributes with formal assurity, the law of the excluded middle is not merely irrelevant, it is wrong. It is excluding possible relationships that it is not correct to formally exclude, since the current state of our knowledge is that they only exist conditionally in theory-sets, as a cloud of probability.
The discrete laws of traditional logic apply to what mathematicians call well-defined domains of discourse. The theoretical meaning of scientific facts is not any such domain. What theory-set a fact may belong to is forever up for grabs. All we can do is increase our confidance in a theory, we cannot prove it correct. Proof is beyond our capability, so the laws of formal proof are moot except as technical analytical tools for making oscilloscopes and such work.
What in Hail??? We are teaching Darwinism to "little school children?" Good grief, PH, then all it can be is an exercise in indoctrination. People need to have developed some critical skills to handle this material. High school would be the appropriate time for theories of evolution. IMHO.
Your confidence in the "suitably credentialled" (PhDs, et al) is touching, PH. But what is the basis of your faith in such characters, sight unseen? Why is it you just naturally assume good will on their part?
To my way of thinking, the suitable "base material" for little kids would be Genesis, not Darwinism or ID.
Well, sure, but that's a semantic point rather than a scientific one. The colorectal basis of peristalsis is likewise not peristalsis, but if you want to understand it, you are best off studying the bowels.
OK, that was vulgar, but this is the Smok'y Backroom. A more genteel analogy might be to say that the paint is not the image, and in fact I like that better, because the same image can be expressed equally well on a computer screen or a t-shirt as on a canvas. I see no reason not to expect that the same will be true of minds, with what is now instantiated in fragile wetware being expressed in greater detail on a grain of sand, a mote of dust, or a beam of light.
But if we're gonna rest on our laurels at this juncture, and not pursue other hypotheses, if only to "cross-check" the one we've already got, then we're not going to learn anything new about the mind.
Unless, of course, the hypothesis is the correct one, after all.
The problem here is that we're using nouns ("The" Mind, consciousness, "soul", if you will) to express what is probably better off as a verb. "Mind" is the action performed, for instance, by the brain.
Where did I say that? I said your statement was innacurate, and it was.
The very fact that you bother to respond to my post indicate that you are well aware that they did! That's one black mark for you! haha.
How's that again? Responding to a post is conceding its accuracy? Perhaps you should give a seminar on how, through excessive logic flogging, one can convince oneself that peace is war and black is white.
Addendum: Teach it, not as "religion," but as a "story" or "myth" that Western man continues to hand down to his progeny, as he has for two millennia by now. This is a fact having unquestioned historical basis -- and so Genesis is worth knowing if only for that reason. It lays out the basic issues extraordinarily well and in a manner that people of all ages and backgrounds can grasp -- even little kids.
Their work is published and reviewed by others. Anyone can study the material if he has doubts about its authenticity. I have confidence in the system because it works. In effect, they say: "Here's the evidence we have, and here are our conclusions." That's fine with me. That's what should be presented to children in school. If they want to study the material in depth, there are libraries. And if they want to become specialists in a scientific field, that's what universities are for. As for Genesis, we all start out with that. Not a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.