Posted on 11/08/2005 4:10:06 PM PST by WestVirginiaRebel
And we'll replace them with the sun and moon standing still, a 6,000 year-old earth, and a global flood. Now that's a gem for you!
Yeah, and look at all that home schooling being done by those Christians and how poorly those children are doing in academia:>)
ALL we have ever asked is that an alternate beginning theory was taught. I beleive strongly in science, while your side believes just like the abortionists: the more information people have is bad because you just may lose some of your power.
I like the Ojibwa creation story. Can we choose that one?
Reason #654,377,653,538 to homeschool.
I am, frankly, appalled that people would support such a move. I believe the movement to redefine science in this way, however well-intentioned, does a disservice to students. It is also a disservice to both science, as well as faith in the Lord. We all know where a road paved with good intentions leads.
There is something rotten behind this movement to water down science. I don't know what it is, and I don't know who's behind it, but something about the political movement to misuse science in this way raises warning flags for me.
How does one rightly justify redefining science to include the supernatural? Is it because the schools are bad? Is it because these students need to be taught morality? Of course students need to be taught morality, but who should do the teaching? Is science class the appropriate venue for doing so? Why not parents? Aren't parents teaching their children morality? And if they're not, why the schools?
Is science such a threat to faith, that children need to be taught the wrong things? How does one teach morality by lying about what science is? Is faith so weak today that some people feel the need to utilize the strength of science in order to give credibility to religion? What lesson would children take to heart from such a deceitful message?
The famous Orthodox rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz (1872-1946) wrote:
God the Creator and Lord of the Universe, which is the work of his goodness and wisdom; and Man, made in His image, who is to hallow his week-day labors by the blessedness of Sabbath-rest -- such are the teachings of the Creation chapter. It's purpose is to reveal these teachings to the children of man -- and not to serve as a text book of astronomy, geology, or anthropology. Its object is not to teach scientific facts; but to proclaim highest religious truths respecting God, Man, and the Universe. The "conflict" between the fundamental realities of Religion and the established facts of Science, is seen to be unreal as the soon as Religion and Science each recognizes the true border of its domain.
So if in the next decade the biologists decide that random mutations plus natural selections cannot explain the speed and purposefulness of evolution and that living organisms are designed in intelligent way propelling the useful changes, THEN WHAT? Will you be for prohibiting the presentation of the obsolete Darwin theory?
Should the obsolete Newton physics be banned from the schools? Should earlier scientific theories like the ones of Aristotle to be banned too?
Are the XIX century concepts of blind randomness and competition necessary for the establishment of secularist belief system?
And science, don't forget that. They said "No" to science, too.
Rumors that the board is planning to introduce alchemy as a science elective have not yet been confirmed.
Not if the school board has any say in the matter.
The New-Ager, Scientologists, PostModernDeconstructionistTextualizers, Creationists, Father Moon Followers, and their soulmates, Harun Yahya, have done their best to destroy science.
But nothing intelligent in designing the new standards.
Elijah Muhammed, founder of the Black Muslims, taught that the white race was created by black scientists in a test tube 10,000 years ago. Is that an acceptable intelligent design explanation?
Oh, sure, point out how brilliant, intelligent, and well educated these kids being taught by UNSCIENTIFIC neanderthals are! But can they put a condom on a banana in the dark? And I bet they suck at performing abortions. So really, what good are they without a circularly defined SCIENCE education?
I think that was the first genuinely amusing and witty dig from your side on this thread. Good one. :-)
In addition, the board rewrote the standards' definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Pandora's Box opens.
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.