[Tribune7]

And in any case, why pick this one bad idea among so many?

Why do you think it's a bad idea?

How much chemistry do you think we'd get through in a semester if we did it by having a discussion over every concept?

How much biology/chemistry/physics are we going through now in middle school/high school? How much global warming/gay gene/gender-myth pop-science crap is being foisted on students now in the name of science.

If we teach that there is a design to life and the universe, and a reason for our existence beyond chance, and truth is real and findable, we will have smarter kids and better scientists.

We tend to interpret complex objects in terms of what Dennett calls the 'design stance'; seeing something, we ask ourselves 'what is it for?'. It's hardwired into the way we think, not the object we're looking at.

Or maybe it's because they are designed :-)

[Right Wing Professor]

Why do you think it's a bad idea?

Because you can't calculate a priori probabilities for a process without specifying mechanism in detail.

How much biology/chemistry/physics are we going through now in middle school/high school? How much global warming/gay gene/gender-myth pop-science crap is being foisted on students now in the name of science.

My kids didn't get a whole lot of that. Your Public School System May Vary.

If we teach that there is a design to life and the universe, and a reason for our existence beyond chance, and truth is real and findable, we will have smarter kids and better scientists.

I disagree completely.

[Dimensio]

If we teach that there is a design to life and the universe, and a reason for our existence beyond chance, and truth is real and findable, we will have smarter kids and better scientists.

Why lie to our children and say that we've demonstrated some "design to life" and that we know that there's a reason for our existence beond chance? How will lying to children in htis way make them smarter?