Replies

Let me be clear that I don't think it's good that schools teach creationism, intelligent design, or other pseudoscience such as astrology, withchraft, ESP, etc. If I were to create or fund or support a school, I would argue against it doing those things. So it's not that I think it's appropriate for schools to teach falsehoods and pseudoscience. My point is that it is not for me to judge what is appropriate or not for other people. When I own my own private school, it's my own business to make those judgements. But when it's a public school, the school should serve the purposes of everybody. Not only should it serve the purposes of both those in favour of pseudoscience and those in favour of science. But, more importantly, it should recognize that not everybody will agree on what is science and what is pseudoscience. In a free society everybody is allowed to make his own judgement on that. For goverment to make that judgement for people is authoritarian. Therefore, governments should not forbid subjects being tought based on the fact that they are pseudoscience. If you give government the power to forbid something because it's pseudoscience, then they are bound also to forbid something genuinely scientific and true at some point, on the arguement that it is pseudoscience. We are all fallible, and so is the government. Power given to government to protect us against illness, unhapiness and bad ideas, even with the best of intentions, will eventually turn against us and control us.

Well, if you wanted to do away with public schools, forcing them to teach whatever lunacy any freak wants taught would be one way to destroy them.

The government makes decisions all the time about what's good science and what's pseudoscience. The FDA does it; NIH and CDC do it, the NTSB does it. Now, maybe when the Libertarian millennium comes, the gummint will get out of the business of certifying drugs as safe and effective, coordinating the control of epidemics, investigating airplane crashes, etc. But while they're doing all those things, there is no inconsistency in their deciding what subjects are science and what are b.s..

Well, if you wanted to do away with public schools, forcing them to teach whatever lunacy any freak wants taught would be one way to destroy them.

There are more ways than you might realize I am on your side. Given the general population one may well wonder whether public schools represent the sum of ignorance. I happen to think the things we contend over - between you and me - can be a part of general education without either of us accusing the other of preaching the "lunacy of freaks." At the same time, it is not lost on me that a certain "lunacy of freaks" is out there, among whom are willing participants flying passenger aircraft into populated skyscrapers for their cause.

A tone of civility must attend those occasions where science and theology appear to be at odds. We happen to live in a country where civil contemplation over ideas is welcomed. Although the propositions of the proponents of intelligent design may appear preposterous from your point of view (which point of view I am not not willing to dismiss arbitrarily, even as a young earth creationist who appears to you as one who champions ignorance), they are worth sounding out into the reason and senses of all interested observers in order that they might be evaluated on their own merits.

It pains me to see the force of law brought to bear on what ought, or ought not, be spoken out for individuals to consider for themselves. I do not want the voice of dogmatic evolutionists silenced, but I would certainly hope for an atmosphere in which it could be challenged without the interference of judges and legislatures.

Based on past history, however, I am given to believe that a kind of mob spirit would squelch any serious dialogue between either party. At any rate, despite my own belief, it would be less than charitable of me to blurt out that any and every dogmatic evolutionist is a "lunacy freak." Deception and pride do not advertise themselves as such. Moon Bats are the last to realize they don't quite fit into the scheme of normalcy. That's okay. They have something to say, and it might just be the absolute truth.

I don't like the idea of my tax money paying for abortion. It is a subject that's not been thoroughly discussed in the people's legislature and had legislative decision (vote) made on it. It is a ruling by judicial fiat. In other words it is imposed on us. (Planned Parenthood receives government funding.)

Likewise, the evol/creation/id debate has not been discussed in the people's legislature. These reps are elected to weigh all the needs and to find reasonable solutions that balance the various needs of the citizenry. If they get it wrong, they get voted out of office. Additionally, these elected reps are to do their work in light of the constitution. Unfortunately, in many areas, they get immediately over-ruled by a judicial oligarchy that now rules our government.

The legislature would come up with some kind of compromise on crevo. The judges would not allow it based on their wild interpretations of the meaning of the first amendment.

It is just this debate in legilative session that would prevent every lunacy being made part of public policy. HOWEVER, even when turned down, the people involved would know that their pet issue had been given its day to make its case, and that it had lost.

They would then be free to vote reps in and out. They would have a part in the process. To short-circuit that part by judicial fiat is what presents the most danger to this society.