Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
You've been here two months (under your present name) and I've been here over six years. You want me to justify my presence here to you? Sorry. When you get yourself appointed Grand Inquisitor, look me up.
I was humoring the attempt to stereotype Creationists as "dumb" -- when the statement is senseless namecalling.
However,
on my father's line, 2 lead nuclear engineers/physicists on the manhattan project (great and grand), and my father with NASA.
=D
I would very much favor a required course on "Critical Thinking" for high school students in which the entire debate was aired out fully, not as an entire course mind you, because training in logic and rhetoric, epistemology (Theories of Knowledge), and a brief overview of schools of philosophical thought should form the greater part of the course.
What debate? It's a religious debate. I'm with you on the 'critical thinking'....but what are they to be taught?.. that there is no debate in the scientific community, nor among the leadership of the majority of Christian religions. I do not think that 'critical thinking' per say is undertaught in American schools. I think the targets of this 'critical thinking' and the definition of 'critical thinking' are the issue.
training in logic and rhetoric, epistemology (Theories of Knowledge), and a brief overview of schools of philosophical thought should form the greater part of the course.
Won't happen in the Ipod age. IMHO, smart students can educate themselves provided they are not insulated from and discouraged from pursuing knowledge. Perhaps some others would benefit from a 'Critical Thinking' thinking class such as you describe, but I doubt it, and in the liberal USA of teachers, guess what they'll be 'critical' of. A more modest goal in my mind, and an achievable one, is to keep religious dogma out of science classes.
Time directly relates to conservatism? Things are suddenly made clear.
I'd say the alternative is to find a subject which will be interesting to students, but with regard to which you don't have an appreciable percentage of teachers who will have an ax to grind or an ox to gore. That shouldn't be hard. There are plenty of controversies within the history of science that would be highly engaging (upon resurrecting the richness of their forgotten details) but which won't evoke particularistic passions.
Amazing how intelligence is used by evolutionists to prove correctness.
Sounds like another Liberal talking point.
Anyone recall Kerry vs. Bush? IQ and education? Anyone?
Right. They should teach about Galileo's difficulties over his solar system theory. That one should help the kiddies when they encounter the evolution issue.
there is nothing in evolution that would condemn it either.
BTW, hilter certainly had justifcation/rationalization of the German scientific community too.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/profiles/
At least the religious ones like Heisenberg.
Is he profiled in the link I gave?
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/profiles/
I guess this is too much to ask nowadays.
Evolution is about old bones, fossils, and DNA, and figuring out what they are all trying to tell us.
That's a dead link for me.
yup.
And he cut down trees and ate his lunch.
I suspect he also went to the lavatory on occasion.
I seem to have lost part of the internet. FR is working, though.
Really? Seems that evolutionists are questioning Creationist's intelligence on more than one occasion here at FR.
"Really? Seems that evolutionists are questioning Creationist's intelligence on more than one occasion here at FR."
I am sure it seems that way to you.
And you still don't get it.
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.