- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
i went to a private school for a year and a half it was ok but i liked the public schools better socially however education was better at the private school
painogb said:So i guess it's very obvious that i totally lack street smarts
spunkey monkey said:well i did live on the streets for a bit and they were useful to me
Bob, I am going to start calling you my favorite "progressive thinker"! I would say "liberal", but I am not quite sure that fits!
bob_gray said:They have rewritten the definition of "science" to include "intelligent design" but of course that also opens the door to astrology, phrenology and any other idea you want to come up with. I guess colleges in the US are simply going to move Kansas graduates to the bottom of the list.
Intelligent Design "officially" has very little to do with any organized religion. It also has very little to do with science. The short reason of why ID is not science is because there is nothing to test. It is entirely an argument of "well I don't know how it happened so there must be an intelligent designer." That is a pretty weak argument and certainly not science.SISTER_KATE said:Science does include Intelligent Design and all the rest. Why not explore that realm as well? The schools are so willing to sacrifice God and embrace Muslim teachings that exposing "intelligent design" to the students is not any more detrimental now is it?
bob_gray said:
Intelligent Design "officially" has very little to do with any organized religion. It also has very little to do with science. The short reason of why ID is not science is because there is nothing to test. It is entirely an argument of "well I don't know how it happened so there must be an intelligent designer." That is a pretty weak argument and certainly not science.
GoingNova said:Suggesting a creator is no more far fetched than saying "we don't know how it got there, it was just there". As it was pointed out in a prior thread by someone, quite a bit of science is theory, and not provable as well, so are you suggesting that we only teach what is definitively proven?
If you are proposing a comparative religions class then I am all for that. If you are proposing that we should teach creationism is science class because "some people believe this" then I have to object. Don't forget that when you open the door to your religion in US public schools you have to open it to all. Should all of these ideas be in science classes too? http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.htmlWhat is so calamitous about saying "Some people believe this, others believe this?" I just don't see the harm, particularly when neither is conclusively true.
A place to debate everything and anything!