Question of the Day
Question for Judge Jones and other Darwinists:
Which is worse, teaching kids allegedly pseudoscientific criticisms of Darwinism or teaching them that arbitrary censorship is OK?
IMO it is a good question, if I do say so myself.
Which is worse, teaching kids allegedly pseudoscientific criticisms of Darwinism or teaching them that arbitrary censorship is OK?
IMO it is a good question, if I do say so myself.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/04/2007 12:14:00 PM
7 Comments:
> Which is worse, teaching kids allegedly pseudoscientific criticisms of Darwinism or teaching them that arbitrary censorship is OK? <
You have never given an example of this "arbitrary" censorship. I have only seen it practiced on this blog and even that you have claimed to have stopped.
Eliminating the teaching of mythology in science classes is not censorship and it is by no means arbitrary.
>>>>>>> Eliminating the teaching of mythology in science classes is not censorship and it is by no means arbitrary. <<<<<<
There is no constitutional separation of pseudoscience and state.
> There is no constitutional separation of pseudoscience and state. <
Nor is there a constitutional requirement that nonsense be taught in science classes.
So far all of the alternatives to evolution that you have given do have a religious basis whether you realize it or not.
>>>>> Nor is there a constitutional requirement that nonsense be taught in science classes. <<<<<<
And there is no constitutional requirement that "nonsense" not be taught in science classes.
>>>>> So far all of the alternatives to evolution that you have given do have a religious basis whether you realize it or not. <<<<<<
I am not talking about "alternatives" to evolution -- I am talking about criticisms of evolution. There is no rule that says that a scientific theory may not be challenged without presentation of an alternative scientific theory at the same time. Non-ID criticisms of evolution -- e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction -- do not involve design and hence do not imply the existence of a supernatural designer. Also, these two criticisms do not question the effectiveness of the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. Also, a criticism of evolution should not be automatically dismissed just because it has religious implications.
> criticisms concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction <
Give an example. So far your stuff hasn't held water.
> Also, a criticism of evolution should not be automatically dismissed just because it has religious implications. <
It should be if it is totally religious, as is ID.
>>>>>> criticisms concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction <
Give an example. So far your stuff hasn't held water. <<<<<<<
Click on "Non-ID criticisms of evolution" in the sidebar
> Click on "Non-ID criticisms of evolution" in the sidebar <
I said ones that hold water. So far everything you said under those topics has been successfully refuted.
Post a Comment
<< Home