| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2006 07:23:20 PM |
| Object: |
A not very intelligent design debate |
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist Christians.
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent Design
should be taught in US schools?
For the uninitiated, intelligent design is the notion that the human body is
too complicated to be the product of mere chance mutations, and therefore
must have been designed by some greater being. The word 'God' of course is
never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this step.
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they descended
from monkeys, and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious and that its inclusion in public school violates the [USA]
constitutional separation of church and state.
The intellectual elites of course all support this decision, because they
recognize Intelligent Design for what it is - God bothering masquerading as
science. Any self respecting rational human would object to this being
taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Wouldn't they?
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a strict 3
'R's curriculum, some would choose schools with a deep commitment to
political correctness, WIMMIN!'s Studies, creationism or stamp collecting.
Et viva la difference.
The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that all children have to
be taught the same thing. We can't leave it up to mere parents to decide
what the schools should teach - only a powerful all-knowing government could
make that decision. And no matter how disgusted someone is with the
government's decision, they would prefer to fight to control government
policy than to simply promote a system which allows them to make their own
decisions.
It is ironic that the symbol for creationism is also the symbol for human
choice. Christians are adamant that God gave Adam free choice - he, like the
rest of us, was free to sin. But so many are so adamant that force should be
used to stop others making mistakes. The inspiration that lets them know how
to stop others making the wrong decisions about their lives - it must be
truly divine.
.
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
01 Jan 2006 07:48:16 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:18ypujh9s9u2y.dlg@sec12-orange.ultima.com...
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people
want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a strict
3
'R's curriculum, some would choose schools with a deep commitment to
political correctness, WIMMIN!'s Studies, creationism or stamp collecting.
Et viva la difference.
Seems like you answered your own question there. Schools based on
indoctrinating students with flimsy fringe theories (whether theological or
secular in nature) wouldn't have too much impact if parents had to make the
choice deciding whether little Johnny or Janie learn that type of stuff, or
something more useful.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
01 Jan 2006 07:39:45 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" wrote in a message
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately...
Deservedly so.
... but maybe it's time to give them a bit of a break and go
after the fundamentalist Christians.
It's always been time for that. To think that a supposedly educated society
would continue to buy into ridiculous mythological stories about magic gods
in 2006 is truly sad.
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people
want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
No problem. If people want their kids taught mythology as reality, send them
to a catholic (or other religion of the parents choosing) school.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
01 Jan 2006 08:23:49 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist Christians.
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent Design
should be taught in US schools?
For the uninitiated, intelligent design is the notion that the human body is
too complicated to be the product of mere chance mutations, and therefore
must have been designed by some greater being. The word 'God' of course is
never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this step.
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they descended
from monkeys, and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious and that its inclusion in public school violates the [USA]
constitutional separation of church and state.
The intellectual elites of course all support this decision, because they
recognize Intelligent Design for what it is - God bothering masquerading as
science. Any self respecting rational human would object to this being
taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Wouldn't they?
Yes.
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem?
Not much. Some might argue that it's child abuse.
And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem?
Nothing at all. It's perfectly legal.
And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
Again, none at all.
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to.
Parents are already free to make that decision.
[...]
The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that all children have to
be taught the same thing.
Strawman. There are many different kinds of public schools.
[...]
It is ironic that the symbol for creationism is also the symbol for human
choice. Christians are adamant that God gave Adam free choice - he, like the
rest of us, was free to sin.
A choice which creationists are deeply opposed to. They want all
children forced to learn the creationist religion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
