Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

wrote:
That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

By the way you phrase the statement, I infer you do not consider ID as
religion?

I don't think "intelligent design" is the
way life came about and evolution is the more-reasonable explanation,
but I'm certainly aware of both, and I'd make sure my children were as
well.

If you don't think ID is the way life came about, why would you want it
taught to your kids?

And I think you'll find that most voters would want their kids as
well-educated as possible, and many of those would truly believe that
intelligent design is the more-reasonable explanation.

Many of those might believe the earth is flat; but that doesn't mean we
should squander resources teaching it in school.

"rb608" wrote in news:1166043073.560987.269080@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

Many of those might believe the earth is flat; but that doesn't mean we
should squander resources teaching it in school.

Turns out that this flat earth thing is a myth, tracable to Washington
Irving's book about Columbus!! By about 50BC, everyone generally believed
that the Earth was spherical.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:12:54 -0600, wrote:
First, people cannot be "taught evolution" or "intelligent design," they
can only be informed about them (or "taught _about_ them, if you
prefer).

ahahahahahahahahahahaha! classic!

/daytripper (gasbag, thy name is Richard)

wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.

Teach us, oh solon. Um.....well, o.k., teach us "about", anyway.
Seriously.

Wolfgang

Scott Seidman wrote:
"rb608" wrote in news:1166043073.560987.269080@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

Many of those might believe the earth is flat; but that doesn't mean we
should squander resources teaching it in school.

Turns out that this flat earth thing is a myth, tracable to Washington
Irving's book about Columbus!! By about 50BC, everyone generally believed
that the Earth was spherical.

Swap it for sun orbiting the earth, the result is the same.
- Ken

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"rb608" wrote in news:1166043073.560987.269080@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

Many of those might believe the earth is flat; but that doesn't mean we
should squander resources teaching it in school.

Turns out that this flat earth thing is a myth, tracable to Washington
Irving's book about Columbus!! By about 50BC, everyone generally believed
that the Earth was spherical.

Actually, the story isn't quite that simple. The flat versus spherical
debate (not to mention infinite variations) raged for a long time. It
certainly IS true that most educated people knew a long time ago that the
question had been settled, but it was by no means a dead issue as late as
the mid-15th century......any more than evolution versus intelligent design
is today. Washington Irving may have popularized the myth about Columbus,
but many of the sailors aboard his vessels undoubtedly had serious concerns
about this spherical Earth "theory."

Incidentally, while Columbus was obviously right about the shape of the
Earth, he was WAY wrong about its size (thus leading him to believe that
he'd arrived at the East Indies).......which had been pretty accurately
estimated by a number of folks centuries earlier.

Wolfgang

" wrote in message
ps.com...

Scott Seidman wrote:
"rb608" wrote in news:1166043073.560987.269080@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

Many of those might believe the earth is flat; but that doesn't mean we
should squander resources teaching it in school.

Turns out that this flat earth thing is a myth, tracable to Washington
Irving's book about Columbus!! By about 50BC, everyone generally
believed
that the Earth was spherical.

Swap it for sun orbiting the earth, the result is the same.

O.k., is it just me, or does anyone else have an uneasy suspicion that that
sentence might mean something or other?

Wolfgang

On 13 Dec 2006 12:51:13 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

By the way you phrase the statement, I infer you do not consider ID as
religion?

I don't, no, but I don't begrudge anyone who chooses to (peacefully) do
so...and don't think ID is a satisfactory explanation of how life came
to be. But I am able to reach that conclusion for myself because I know
at least a smattering about the thinking behind ID. IMO, general
"science" class (in the non-collegial, preparatory education, such as in
a US lower, middle, or upper school) is as good a place as any to inform
about it under the premise that it is an alternative theory to what is
accepted as "science," but I don't feel that such instruction _must_
occur there. It isn't what I'd call accepted modern science, but
neither is much of early (erroneous) "science" which is taught about as
precursor information in the chain leading to current, accepted thought.

I don't think "intelligent design" is the
way life came about and evolution is the more-reasonable explanation,
but I'm certainly aware of both, and I'd make sure my children were as
well.

If you don't think ID is the way life came about, why would you want it
taught to your kids?

Because if they aren't well-informed, they can't possibly make
well-informed choices. There are lots of ideas that I don't personally
embrace that I don't wish to be hidden from anyone, children included.

And I think you'll find that most voters would want their kids as
well-educated as possible, and many of those would truly believe that
intelligent design is the more-reasonable explanation.

Many of those might believe the earth is flat; but that doesn't mean we
should squander resources teaching it in school.

Uh, yeah, "we" sure as heck wouldn't wanna squander resources teaching
things in school...why, shoot, too much of that kinda nonsense, and
before you know it, schools won't be able to afford new computers or
something...

IAC, just how do you "squander resources" by teaching about something in
a school? In fact, how do you squander them teaching about anything,
anywhere?

wrote in news:u0r0o25h0d94dedjp6qvpubkb4c82jj7m3@
4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.


Decades of my scientific training, including federal grant review
responsiblities, all teach me that an untestable hypothesis expounded as
"truth"is shoddy science (aka, crap). Therefore, when we teach something
like this, we don't make believe that it is good science. In fact, we try
to make it clear that its not science at all.

Theologans and religious instructors are perfectly free to discuss such
matters all they want, with whoever I want. If its taught as science in a
school system supported by my tax dollars, I'll be at the top of the class
action suit.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply