Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
--snip--The problems only arise when people try to put religious Creation stories into a science class.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by richlevy
--snip--Science deals with facts or theories for which there is evidence. Saying that there might be a creator based on the unsubstantiated beliefs of individuals has no place in a science class.
|
Well put, gentlemen.
This is exactly my single greatest complaint about this administration in particular. It is the bald, brass, naked abuse of power expressed by choosing an idea and then calling it something else. Compassionate Conservatism. The Clean Skies Act. The Global War On Terror.
They choose what they want to do (as they should, to the winners the spoils), but then call it the very opposite sometimes! The manipulative hypocrisy of this style of leadership galls me, infuriates me. Intelligent design is a set of ideas that has it's own merits and flaws. But. It is **NOT** science. Calling it science, demanding in the name of fairness, in the spirit of discovery, that it be considered with equal weight, as though it were scientific, is sooooo wrong I am at a loss to articulate it.
What kind of argument flaw/style is this example: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" One that starts with false premises and restricts the choices to a list where they're mutually exclusive (yes versus no) and all wrong? That's how I feel when lured into a discussion about ID as an alternative scientific theory. It's an invalid question. Why not teach it in math class? Why not teach it in P.E.? It has the same relevance. But those comparisons don't reflect the same authority as "ID is competitve with Evolution."
Aaarrrrgh!