My position is not that science should incorporate the supernatural. My position is that science taught without a reference to other things that are not science, to things that are moral and religious, is an empty system destined to destruction, despair, and emptiness.
Does this apply to math, as well? What's the moral precept behind 1 + 1 = 2? How about physics? If E=mc2 doesn't make us better people, should we ban it?
I have no idea how relative murder rates among various subpopulations of the United States have to do with getting the science in science class. I'm not advocating dropping history, art, music, et al., from our schools, I'm advocating keeping science in. ID is not science. It does not belong in science class.
Though awful things have been justified by TOE and are historically true, I am inaccurate in assessing TOE effects upon the human condition.
"Before the TOE there was no Hitler. After the TOE there was Hitler. The TOE caused Hitler. QED." I don't buy it. But if you'd like to apply it to the various depredations perpetrated in the name of religion (I wouldn't), be my guest.
I think that is basically your assertion, sounding much like Dan Rather's assertion regarding the National Guard Memos: "They are fake, but they are nevertheless accurate."
You're wrong. I am asserting you're using a logical fallacy, even though the facts you cited may be correct. See the Hitler example above. This is not remotely akin to what Dan Rather said, and I'm surprised you'd even attempt such a smear. Thugs will use anything handy to justify thuggery. Do guns cause violence?
I agree that TOE is NOT a recipe for a better society; why do so many TOE adherents fight resolutely to suppress what may be a recipe for a better society?
Not only is the TOE not a recipe for a better society, it's not intended as such, and no scientist will assert that it is. What is it that TOE adherents are suppressing that might be a recipe for a better society? If it's cramming religion into science class, that's what Islamic societies are doing right now. Are they better off for it?
Teaching alternative explanations for the existence of life may be an improvement upon a singular explanation with serious flaws.
The TOE is NOT an "explanation for the existence of life." (Repeat once for every time it's been posted here on FR. This will keep you busy for the next thirty years or so). If there ever is a scientific explanation for the existence of life, I will support teaching it in science class. But I will not support teaching non-science in science class under any pretext -- "we'll all be better off," "the kids won't kill each other as much," or "I just hate those lying commie, atheist smarty-pants so-called scientists." I hasten to add that I know that last is not your position, but there's another poster here at FR who seems to think that's actually a sound argument.
Hmmm. I re-read my last post and I did not state that we must cease teaching TOE. I said that teaching TOE in a context lacking alternative ideas, a context that implicitly concludes that materialism explains the origins of the human condition is a dangerous curriculum. TOE potentiates materialism. TOE implicitly teaches atheistic materialism. Maybe this is the concept upon which we disagree, that you do not think it does?
Sartre expressed in his work the agonizing alienation a self-aware entity must combat when fully comprehending the uselessness of the purely materialistic existence. From it rose existentialism, of course, but that philosophy provided scant reason to rejoice in life, except (as did Sartre) with hedonistic excess. Observe materialism's effects, when its stepchild secular humanism becomes government policy, in France, where the native French population has expressed this brave despair by not replacing itself! In just a few generations the French will be a minority in their own nation. And it is the same despair that infects young black men and women who are murdering and being murdered at an unprecedented rate.
Materialism is not the truth, however. And yes, I cannot prove it empirically, but neither can a materialist prove that philosophy's truth empirically. TOE implies a proof of materialism's truth, if no qualification of its inherent weaknesses are not part of the curriculum's context.
"Before the TOE there was no Hitler. After the TOE there was Hitler. The TOE caused Hitler. QED." I don't buy it.
That is not what I stated. I outlined a progression of development in brief from Comte to Nietzsche, that came to major fruition in Marx. A major component of the progression included Darwin and TOE, with its implicit materialistic affirmations. Your distillation of my summary is a misunderstanding of my argument.
I am asserting you're using a logical fallacy, even though the facts you cited may be correct.
What I asserted is not logically false. It is a conclusion drawn from facts. I may be in error, but it is not illogical.
See the Hitler example above.
I have addressed that misunderstanding.
This is not remotely akin to what Dan Rather said, and I'm surprised you'd even attempt such a smear.
If you think of Dan Rather with such low regard that you assess comparison with him to be smear, you deserve an apology. I apologize for the smear.
The TOE is NOT an "explanation for the existence of life." (Repeat once for every time it's been posted here on FR. This will keep you busy for the next thirty years or so).
I slipped when I wrote that. I know that TOE is not an explanation for the existence of life. Honestly, I was not aware of the error even as wrote the sentence. But it is an honest example of the way that TOE affects thinking: if mutations + natural selection + billions of years = human development from primitive life, then something else akin to it must be responsible for injecting life into TOE. It is difficult to separate matters, perhaps also in the science classroom?
If there ever is a scientific explanation for the existence of life, I will support teaching it in science class. But I will not support teaching non-science in science class under any pretext...
I do not think we disagree substantially, since I insist only upon an educational context that includes mention of TOE weaknesses and alternatives. Does that have to be in the science class? Not necessarily, since my concerns can be addressed in other studies, if alternative explanations are not prohibited in a public school setting.
...or "I just hate those lying commie, atheist smarty-pants so-called scientists." I hasten to add that I know that last is not your position, but there's another poster here at FR who seems to think that's actually a sound argument.[emphasis added]
Well, that is unfortunate, since hate accomplishes little constructively, but I know you are sensible enough to disregard such drivel.
Yours may be the last word, if you wish to respond.