Replies

My point which I suppose you can't grasp is that the TTOE is or should be debatable at the very least.

I do not have my own personal "theory" per se.

I do not even like these threads a whole lot because it is like debating a Jehovah's Witness or something. A waste of time, unless you are in it for the fun.

I have my beliefs, and among them is that Darwinism should not be elevated to the point where it is inarguable. That is what is happening today. There is no toleration of dissent.

Ann Coulter wrote about a few fraudulent things in this new book. She had me thinking about some stuff after I finished it.

Somehow darwinism has been made law. How did that happen? Nobody in education calls it a law, but go take a case against ID to a court and learn just what the judges say law is concerning the matter.

It is ridiculous. There should be balance.

ID may not satisfy the question of mutating mosquitos in subway tunnels, or how and why recombinant DNA can be shown in college labs all over the country, but human beings with mores and long held cultural systems are not going to just sit everything out.

There are reasonable persons who have disagreements, and they should not be ridiculed, threatened, or be forced to accept one particular faith in the schools systems on their own dime.

The courts are out of control in this, and just as the lawful gay marriage thing will eventually be rid of, so will the certain other offense that are being imposed by activists.

>>Somehow darwinism has been made law. How did that happen? Nobody in education calls it a law, but go take a case against ID to a court and learn just what the judges say law is concerning the matter.<<

There is no problem debating anything in science. The only problem comes when people try to force force science to teach ID without scientific basis.

ID may not satisfy the question of mutating mosquitos in subway tunnels, or how and why recombinant DNA can be shown in college labs all over the country, but human beings with mores and long held cultural systems are not going to just sit everything out.

The summary of your post is that there can be "alternate theories." Certainly. But ID is not a "theory" by any definition (except for "theory"="guess").

By definition, ID cannot explain the MECHANICS of evolution. Therefore it cannot be a theory. It is a belief.

Teaching ID in science class is the same as teaching catholicism in math class. It is trying to teach "back door" religion where it does not belong. If you teach ID, you have to teach every other Creation myth. And which of those myths is appropriate in a science class?

This is not about "alternate theories" or "open debate." This is about teaching a specific religous belief in publci scohools.

There is no "alternate theories" to TToE. The only people that have so-called alternatives don't understand it.

It is ridiculous. There should be balance.

O.K. Then in economics and public affairs, let's "balance" capitalist principles with instruction in communism. And of course we must "balance" consensual values of Western Liberalism with Sharia Law.

The notion that "balance" is a good for it's own sake is necessarily a RELATIVIST value.

How about we just inform students as honestly as possible about the ACTUAL content of science. At such time as some non-evolutionary theory may earn standing in the marketplace of scientific ideas on merit, then by all means teach it. Any time there is an actual scientific debate, then tell students about all sides thereof. But when one theory is ascendant, and has no viable contenders, academic (and simple intellectual) integrity requires that you tell students that too.