Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

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 message
...
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?

I get it. It's like child molestation. Most of us know what it is and
would never subject our children to such degenerate individuals with such
perverse behaviors, but because you want you children to be well learned,
you would actually introduce you children to a child molester and leave them
with he/she over the day.

Simple logic, the Rah Dean method of teaching about.

Op

wrote in news:25r0o2tmif0er5jp06na3uggm6ncg1cmb9@
4ax.com:

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?



When you teach as part of your living, you come to realize that time is a
precious asset. When you are teaching them one thing, you cannot be
teaching them something else. There are enough hard choices about what we
should spend this precious resource of time on, without worrying about when
we should cram in the fairy tales and tell the kids they're true.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply