Why are atheists so threatened by Intelligent Design?

(My bold)

There are a couple of models for the society you seem to be advocating for. One is Somalia & all the other failed states - chaos @ the local & state level, no police, no schools, no law, no property - other than what can be defended by force of arms. Hardly any economy.

The other is the wet dream of the Koch brothers & their partisans - a return to the Dark Ages, when kings ruled by divine right, the lesser nobility owed loyalty & raised personal armies to enforce the rights of the liege lord, if necessary - & education was a pipedream in the heads of a handful of literate scribes, busy manufacturing books - luxury objets de art - for the powerful. The merchants scraped about, longing for an unrigged legal system, the peasants slaved & died, & served in the fief lord's army @ his pleasure.

There were ugly concomitants, of course. Women were chattel, the droit de seigneur was real enough, & life in general was short, nasty & brutish.

No thanks. I prefer the current system - with all its problems. @ least there's the hope of reform there. What you're advocating is Orwell's view of "imagine a boot stamping a human face - forever". That's not a future - that's a curse.

 

I don't think you know what model I would support.

As I suspected. You don't know my position well enough to suggest that I support what amounts to anarchy. I do not endorse any kind of anarchy. My position is NOT that there should be no government at any level. I endorse a government of objective law with adequate police protection and a system of law courts. I support property rights and protection of the same. I support an organized military under civilian government control. My only objection, which was raised in my previous post, was to 'public education' or what I refer to as government schooling. Let's address what I wrote, not what you seem to want to assume my position is.

 

If schools are not public, paid by the taxpayer, how do you propose everyone gets and education?
Or are you for illiteracy in today's high tech world?
Education is the building blocks of a society.

 

(My bold)

Good, then. If government - local & state - raises the monies to provide a free adequate public education - & routes the monies back to the LEAs, sets up Dept. of Educ. @ the state level - how to you expect the state not to be involved in the curriculum? Local control of LEAs - public schools K-12, @ least - is still the norm, although the home schools & charter schools & various offshoots tend to report differently. Home schools don't usually report to anyone, although some states require those children to also take whatever statewide testing is otherwise required of public school students.

 

In the Philippines, for example. the parents pay for their kids schooling; (in the USA, they do, too; its just
hidden, and the bureaucrats scrape off layers for themselves)

One consequence is that parents lack patience with kids who wont work or are disruptive.

Hey, you dont like school, go tend the carabao (water buffalo), go weed sugar cane.

Pretty soon school looks a lot better. They should try that in the USA!

 

Education is a value that men should pursue and parents WILL pursue it for their children because they understand the necessity for it. You and I are in full agreement on the value of education. You and I will merely disagree on the method by which it is achieved. I honestly think that more people will be better educated if the government does not control it. But my primary concern is freedom of the individual. When governments step outside of their proper purpose (the protection of rights) they begin to threaten human survival. The greater the degree of control a government exercises, the greater the threat.

 

"It's not the strongest of species who survive, but those most responsive to change."-Charles Darwin.

 

nope its the strongest

 

What, when did this become a pokemon battle?

 

I'm not threatened by it at all. I think it is an archaic belief that doesn't make a great deal of sense, and I am opposed to tax dollars being used to teach it, but if that is what you believe - all the power to you. I'm glad you are at least thinking about such things.

 

So you would rather a non-government run education system regardless of its impact on education?

 

The protection of rights is the first priority if that's what you mean. However, one thing that should be stated is that there is a relationship between freedom and education such that government control harms it (the more such control there is, the worse it gets). Also, if I were to throw the question back on the statists then I would ask: "So you would rather force a government education on others regardless of it's impact on men's lives?"

 

just an example of how becoming weak and blind can be an advantage

 

Hypothetically, there could some day arise a government in which, however briefly, the relationship of freedom vs. education that you espouse is reversed. If this were the case, would your main priority remain individual freedom?

If "the protection of rights is the first priority", your opinion in the second quote should be irrelevant, right?

 

deChardin DID have ideas that were oppositional to Church doctrine......though please do not consider me an expert.

But I may be aligned with the point you are making. Which seems to suggest that there is common ground science/religion in re to ID.

IMO it is good to look to the Deists

 

I'm just letting you know, my horsea is better then yours.

 

...had to look that up...

I think Mothra could easily take out any pokemon. But so far its is hard to train.

 

Is that question meant to reflect the current system? No one is forced to get a "government education" in the US. The government properly recognizes that it is abusive to deny an education to a child. As such, parents are required to educate their children in some way. They can send them to public school, private school, or homeschool them. The government doesn't place limits on what can be taught outside of public school. They only specify that certain basic standards must be met. I don't understand how anyone could object to that broad idea.

 

I don't think people are objecting to the basic premise of society's status being positively correlated with education, just with means of achieving those ends.

 

maybe you live in a country in which public education is of a lesser order than private?

not so where I live. here, it's the public schools which top the academic achievement rankings. the same is true of our health care. private hospitals here can be, and often are, seriously dodgy. public hospitals are always vastly better equipped, better funded, are bigger, have more of the very best staff available, and since many are teaching hospitals, have professors as day to day staff. you COULD pay $3000 a day to be seen by a third rate specialist of your choice in an under equipped private hospital, or you could go to your nearest public teaching hospital with all the latest and greatest equipment, and be seen by the very professor who probably taught your third rate private guy. for FREE.

personal history in point - my kids were all born in public hospitals and I didn't pay a single cent. private ensuite room for a week after each (what I call 'babymoons'). same kids attended public schools, and did so well they all gained places in academically selective PUBLIC schools. as far as I'm concerned, education and health must remain public, and publicly funded to the high levels seen in your more civilised nations.