On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 21:23:32 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu>
wrote:

"Puck Greenman" <sidhe@the.hollow.hills.fey> wrote in message
news:5mu4u1l3b5jo5au50ued6qcd0ctiau0gm4@4ax.com...

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:33:22 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
s:ci29t1d5seka1h8ek8c16fj1uchgsoj5ol@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:15:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , "R.D. Heilman"
<rdhsr@bellsouth.net> in <0m%Af.2871$5O2.2717@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
wrote:

You should. He is a Bush appointed Republican who spent several weeks
examining the ID material. He found it dishonest and empty. There is
nothing there to use to teach critical thinking, it is just warmed
over deceptive creationism.

Anyone who thinks the nations courts should be deciding scientific
questions, or lends any credence to judges and lawyers deciding such
questions is a mental case.

Mmm.
So who should be deciding, what is taught in schools?

Primarily those responsible for educating their children, parents.

Reasonable enough.

There might be some problems though, when parents cannot agree on
what they want.

This would lead to a lot of home schooling, and very little beyond
basic reading, writing and arithmetic, skills being gained by the
student.

However, government is the elected representative of the parents, and
so government, decides a national curricula.
This curricula is based on the needs of both the children, and the
country.

Religions, are not included in the curricula, because it is the RIGHT
of every parent to decide what religious education their children
receive.

By preventing schools from teaching, or indeed, taking part in any
form of religious activity, they ensure that no parent has his/her
RIGHT to raise their children in their own faith, infringed.

Parents, nonetheless, have the RIGHT to home school their children,
get together as a group and form their own school, or send them to
faith based school, if they feel that, that better meets with what
they want their children to learn.

Your Quote:

Government has no business legislating religion or evolution or any
belief system that is not criminal, nor interfere in the process of
free
inquiry, learning and debate in our educational institutions.

End Quote.

You don't want government to decide what is taught in schools, and you
don't want the courts to decide. So tell us, Frank: Who should
decide?

In a free society, only those responsible for their children's
education
have the right to decide. No one else.

Which means that in any given school, you could end up with as many
curricula, as there are, students.
Does this seem practical to you?

You are obviously not competent to decide, nor is anyone else, who
refers to evolution, as a "belief system".

Anyone calling a "theory" anything other than a "belief" or hypothesis
is a liar.

You see, Frank, this is one of the problems with poor education
standards, and an excellent reason why individual parents should NOT
have any say in the over all curricular of a school ; even your
native tongue, is only poorly understood.

Should the parents be allowed to decide?
If so, then schools are a waste of time, at least, for the poor,
educationally deprived, children, of religious fanatics
They have already been taught that goddidit; What else is there for
them to know?

Why?

Because, generally speaking, that is the limit of their parent's
education.

Do you favour dicatorships and thought police? If atheist
"fanatics" should make good little communist or anarchists out of our
children, who all disbelieve in lockstep, would you be satisfied?

Irrelevant straw man.

Teaching science becomes an impossible task, as the students are first
taught to go with what feels good, and that wishful thinking is a
higher power, talking to them.
What hope has a science teacher got of teaching them to think
critically, when they have already been taught that "critical
thinking" is believing, based on subjective, personal, feelings, and
that such feelings are more real, than hard, tangible, empirical,
evidence?
Enlighten us, Frank.

That's BS,

No, it isn't, Frank.

You have seen it often enough your self, in these groups, xtians,
telling us that material reality is false, and the TRUE REALITY is
spiritual.
Or telling us that no matter how much evidence we have about a
subject, the evidence is all false, planted by Satan, to deceive us,
and should be rejected out of hand.
You are even guilty of it your self, insisting that "theory" means
something akin to "wild guess", and denying any other definition the
dictionary offers.

for we are not talking indoctrination as evolutionists would
want it,

But you are. You want to see our children, indoctrinated with your
religious superstition

And of course, that is an example of what I am talking about.
There is more evidence for evolution, and how it works, than there is
for gravity, but because evolution seriously contradicts the five or
six thousand year old mythology of some middle eastern goat herds, you
stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes, and run in circles,
screaming at the top of your voice, "I can't hear you, I can't hear
you" and imagine that will make the nasty truth, go away;
metaphorically, at least.

where voicing doubt and "critical thinking" is not allowed to be
voiced in class, but actual inquiry and debate.

You have obviously never taken an advanced science class,
or even a basic one, for that matter: Have you?

What is and what is not
Intelligent design in itself would make for fascinating debates.

Science only considers what there is evidence for.
There is no evidence for ID.

All that creationists/IDers, can offer, is ignorance, lies, and
incredulity.

Basically we are just turning tables.

I can see that. You have seen superstition fading away over the last
couple or three centuries, due to increasing scientific knowledge, and
the growth of education, even among the poorest.
You have now set out to turn the tables, and once more try and replace
scientific fact with superstitious bull shite, and your weapon of
choice is dishonesty, and incredulity.

Atheists will want us to believe
that there ain't no god(s) for lack of evidence,

We don't care in the least, what you believe, so that is another lie
that you are spreading.
All we ask, is that you keep it away from our children, and from us:
We do not need that evil.

though there are
innumerabel existing gods in our museums and libraries, both concrete and
abstract ones.

No Frank, there are not, that is just petty semantics, and dishonest,
too boot.

But if as you assert, such gods DO exist, demonstrate their power, get
one of them to perform a trick for us.
Certainly, I would be strongly tempted to believe that one of your
effigies, was a god, if it got up and walked around for me to see.

We in turn say there is to random evolution for there is no
evidence for randomness,

What would "evidence for randomness", look like, and how would you
tell it from evidence for design?
Remember, this is supposed to be design by a super being, a god, (but
you mustn't call it a god), and so nothing designed by man, is
relevant as a comparison.
Also, it would be useful if you could offer, as a comparison,
something that was NOT designed by this "designer/god"

The government IS the voice of the people, parents, included