Quote:
|
1) Should Suzy be told by a science teacher that God doesn’t exist?
|
This isn't an issue, as there aren't any science teachers telling kids God doesn't exist. If I did a study on surviving in a whales stomach, and proved conclusively that it was impossible, would that disprove the existance of God? No. And neither does teaching evolution.
Quote:
|
2) Should our secular boards of education insist that Tommy is told that God may or may not exist?
|
No one is really arguing for this, its a non issue.
Quote:
|
3) Should the education of our children rest more in the hands of their parents, than the government?
|
As a liberal elitest, I think most Americans are stupid. Do you really want the lady in the check out line at the grocery store, who is arguing over a 3 cent difference in price on STAR magazine, to teach her children Calculus or John Locke?
Quote:
|
Evolution: Do you believe that this is still a theory? Or is it fact? Why?
|
I think it is fact. There are a few little gaps here and there, but as the field improves the gaps will go away. This is the case in ALL sciences. Its like super massive black holes. At first people predicted they were rare or non existant, now they have discovered that one resides at the center of every galaxy.
Quote:
|
Irreducible Complexity: Do you believe this is a fact? Or is it pseudo science? Why?
|
Ahhh, The crux of the ID argument. I think it was William Dembski who first brought this up.
This has two flaws.
1) At the time he published his work on the subject, there were some gaps in understanding. This gaps will eventually be explained, and there are already several hypothesis. For example that the parts were developed in other areas and had other function, but were co-opted into the new function.
2) Dembski and all other ID people commit the ultimate scientific sin that has plagued religious people since the beginning.
"I can't explain this - therefore God"
Flat Earth, the Sun, the Stars, all fell into this catagory as well.
Where ever our understanding of science ends, there is a religious person saying "HAHAH, Therefore GOD!!" But eventually the science comes up with an explanation. "Its not a sun god driving a chariot..."
To date the religious people have a .000 batting average.
I see no logical reason to hold to a religious doctrine that has been proven wrong time and time again.
More importantly, our young budding scientists in the High School Classroom, should not be learning the mantra of "I can't explain this, therefor GOD." That is not science.
ID is not science, it is only a ruse. They utilize science up to the limits of our scientific understanding, then trash it in favor of the "old ways" of explaining events.
Ixtellor