The best way to make those rational decisions is by following the scientific method.
Again, I agree.
What I am asking you is were you would draw the line between religion and science.
Scripture and divine revelation?
And what method would you use to distinguish among these? If you use the scientific method, the religious-based arguments fall by the wayside pretty quickly.
So what would you have taught to our children in science classes, and why?
If you still want religious-based arguments taught, do you want them taught as examples of what we should believe in spite of the scientific method? Or as examples of where the scientific method discards religious belief when it can't produce scientific evidence.
You seem to be arguing that we should teach the scientific method in schools, but that we should also teach religious-based beliefs and objections as a part of that.
You can't have it both ways.
posted on 07/13/2007 7:58:01 PM PDT
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
I'm arguing for exactly what I said -- no more, no less.
I should have known better than to post to an evolution vs. ID thread -- it's the proverbial tar baby.
I happen to be a strong proponent of the Theory of Evolution -- I'm also a former educator. I think it's just plain stupid for proponents of the ToE to insist on pretending that there are no counter-hypothesis. If you do this, you're being counter-productive -- you're hurting the cause.
If students feel that they're being indoctrinated -- they'll simply rebel, and be all the more receptive to ID, or other explanations. Students will believe they're being indoctrinated when they learn that they were not allowed to be exposed to any alternative explanations.
Teach the scientific method. Show how it applies to the Theory of Evolution.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson