Skip to comments.Returning to Dover [evolution trial in Dover, PA: week 2]
Posted on 10/03/2005 6:22:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Essentially, these will be the defense arguments:
Even though the four-paragraph statement is read to biology students, the district continues to teach evolution according to state education standards
The textbook Biology, co-written by Ken Miller, the plaintiffs first witness, is the book still used in biology class. The pro-intelligent design book Of Pandas and People is in the library, and administrators merely tell students its available.
When the defense gets its turn, Thompson has promised, it will produce witnesses who will argue that intelligent design is science. And even if its proponents are religious, that doesnt necessarily make intelligent design a religious concept, he points out.
One of the key defense witnesses will be Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who espouses the idea of irreducible complexity at the molecular level the idea that if a single working part of an organism were to be removed, the entire system would cease to function. In testimony last week, Brown University biochemistry professor Ken Miller testified that Behes arguments for irreducible complexity have been proven incorrect.
Should we teach 2+2=5 alongside 2+2=4 just so 2+2=4 looks good when we prove it's right?
Oh, welcome to FR.
Thanks for the ping!
Which would put Holocaust-denial material on a par with mainstream history, white supremacist material on a par with mainstream social science, Ebonics on a par with English, etc.
In my view, to educate means to present all materials and information to the student so that the revelation of truth will manifest. Seems evolutionists however are afraid of letting their theories stand against opposing views. Why? If the theory of evolution is in fact the truth and supported by evidence you'd think the evolutionists would WANT their viewpoints compared to the opposition. Imagine how good they'd look if their theory were right. Now look at how bad they look because of their fear.
In my view, to educate means to present all materials and information to the student so that the revelation of truth will manifest. Seems Jews however are afraid of letting their theories stand against opposing views. Why? If the Holocaust is in fact the truth and supported by evidence you'd think the Jews would WANT their viewpoints compared to the Holocaust-deniers. Imagine how good they'd look if their theory were right. Now look at how bad they look because of their fear.
Get the point?
Students should first be taught the mainstream, consensus views on subjects. How will they have a basis for evaluating different positions, if they have no foundation? To insist that all viewpoints should be equally respected is a form of relativism I would think conservatives would not want to see expressed in our public schools.
Of course! It makes perfect sense to teach abstract algebra to first graders before they learn their sums. </sarcasm>
Comparing it to what? The "theory" that some unspecified entity did X with unknown methods and for inscrutable reasons? This is completely useless because it doesn't tell us what we should observe nor (what's even more important) what we shouldn't observe because such an unspecified designer is compatible with every possible observation.
So why should we teach something that is obviously not scientific in science class?
Oh and btw, welcome to FR
Absolutely! Students need to recognize what's right and what's wrong. If they are sheltered from seeing what's wrong how will they ever recognize what's right (and vice versa?)
The approach you suggest is called 'whole math'. The theory is if you let kids 'discover' the truths of mathematics for themselves, they will understand math better, and ultimately learn it more soundly.
In practice it's been an unmitigated disaster. Where it's been adopted, math scores have plummeted. Our experience with it, in fact, has been similar to that of 'whole reading'.
Interestingly, both are considered to be left-wing educational ideas.
And now the IDers want to implement "whole science". Sure, our students' science performance will plummet relative to the rest of the world. But if we just add some more self-esteem programs, they'll feel really good about themselves.
No comment on my #7, eh?
It took about 5 posts for the facade of reasonableness to vanish and reveal you as another ranter.
Oh well, enjoy your time on FR. There are lots of people just like you here to keep you company.
No, it hasn't. But thanks for playing.
If it wasn't you all wouldn't be afraid of teaching children about INTELLIGENT (I know, a foreign word for some of you) DESIGN.
Insults, even. Par for the course, I suppose.
You want to protect children from something try protecting them from those who'd convince them to kill your grand children or those who wish to turn them into drug crazed fiends. Protecting them from a God that loves them is only hurting them and OUR society.
Advancing your socio-religious agenda is not a good enough reason to shoehorn theology into science class.
It's really funny how the fundamentalist right is desperately reaching to programs even the far left has rejected, to try to justify their program of forcing religion into science class.
What was your old screen name?
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.