Quite right. It's not a scientific fact that divinity doesn't create an embryo in any circumstance you can ever imagine, including, but not limited to, virgin birth.

I've read the rest of this and your other posts, including your exchange with Drgoodtrips, and I don't find much else worth responding to. Only the following.

Whether or not I take myself seriously is uninteresting. What is interesting is when someone takes it seriously that evidence is the criterion by which it's determined if a question is scientific. Now, I'm not asserting that anyone reads your post and reaches enlightenment or gets confirmed in their already set ways but it's just plain wrong and I only see wrong reasons not to address it as such.

By the way, when you reply, please see if you can find a way without all the insults. Sure, it's amusing. It also lessens my job since you pretty much derogate your own argumentation. But dude, at least try to insult in new ways instead of the same old boring stuff.

A reassessment is certainly necessary, but my big concern is that lots of "fix" ideas that I hear are essentially letting the inmates run the asylum. I understand that many people want more practicality and "job training" type education for kids, but there's a value to a more broad "liberal arts" style education, as well.

No 6th grader WANTS to learn Julius Caesar. But, exposure to the broader cultural context of life is very important. Algebra isn't really about algebra, it's about using and understaning systems and formulas and rules of logic.

So, I disagree somewhat that there isn't demonstrable value. A refocusing and rededication to what the hell the mission is supposed to be would be a great thing, and long overdue.

But no, K-12 shouldn't be about choice, per se. Kids can't eat chocolate every day, much as they want to. I think the school system has certain core duties that they need to perform no matter what. We can no longer afford to keep churning out cultural and intellectual retards.

Granted, I have an authoritarian streak that most on here detest....

Maybe. To me, K-12 is about making sure everyone starts life on an equal footing, not allowing a ten year old make fun decisions based on whim. (Sometimes, you gotta eat your damn broccoli!) I've never really liked a lot of these namby-pamby feel good educational programs where everyone is special and it's all about self esteem. Reality is going to crush those kids,quickly.

IMO, you have to acheive a certain level of competence before you leave high school. Or, your ass repeats until you do. Some may consider that harsh, but I see no other way we can do it, because our kids are getting blown out of the water, according to the internatiopnal comparisons I have seen. I don't consider failure an option.

More to the topic at hand, if evolutionary theory is current science, then THAT'S what we need to teach. Muddying the waters with bizarre flights of fancy like ID is counterproductive, confusing and sets a dangerous precident for outlandish teaching.

It's all about the separation doctrine. Church is the appropriate place for mythology, and schools have enough to deal with without an additional burden of providing catered, tailored spiritual education, as well.

Not being an expert, I am willing to defer to the pros, really. Evolution makes an awful lot of sense, given the data, and I think it's pretty unlikely that everything we know about biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, and chemistry is completely wrong.

Because if the ID (God) hypothesis is correct, we cannot rely on ANY of that, anymore, and have to toss it ALL. What's the point of studying physics if God can simply tweak the Constants at will?

I don't think it's very reasonable or practical to teach every theory, on the off-chance that it might be correct. Decisions have to be made, and it just makes so much more sense to revise the texts every so often, according to the most current scientific consensus.

__________________
Government's proper role should be that of an impartial referee, maintaining a fair and competitive playing field, with basic, tough regulations so capitalism can work best. Sure, everyone loves to hate the refs, but an NFL game would be a disaster if the players themselves were in charge of self-regulation.

Yes, I think it's human nature to cling to dogma and, often, it doesn't matter much where it comes from.

As a side note, I've read the second sentence about 50 times now and can't get past this question: Does it imply that asserting religion as superior to science turns religion into science?

lol... of course not. Religions naturally assert themselves as superior to science and anything else - their way or the highway.

Scientific practice, on the other hand, makes no qualitative assertions like that. It's simply a pursuit of knowledge through experimentation. However, if you put the two on a level playing field, so to speak, and say that science prevails, your religion is science.

To explain what I mean, it need not be science. If I say that smoking marijuana is much better than religion, I'm asserting that marijuana smoking provides all of the answers and gratification that religion purports to, which, by default, makes it my religion.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

@Skerlnik

I'll reply when I have a bit more time. I'm trying to finish up some programming here so that I can get out of the office and, hopefully, enjoy a bit of a weekend.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

This is the last response you'll get from me because I'm not going to keep dragging this thread off topic further than YOU already have.

YOU are the one who includes the snide insults into your replies to me first. I just reply in kind. If you don't like them directed back at you, then stop directing them at me. And the same goes for all your "little buddies" who can't seem to resist chiming in.

End this now.

Mr. Gorbachev...

Tear. Down. This. Wall!

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Depending on how religion is defined, I disagree, highly disagree or, perhaps, reluctantly agree with this.

Regardless of the definition, asserting that something is better than religion not only requires that one relates to religion but that one does so in a way that religion is considered good. Either that or anything is better than religion. And in that case, nothing becomes religion. Except, of course, religion (and that relies on definition only since it can't be related to otherwise).

If religion is defined as faith in divinity, belief in the existence of divinity or, in fact, anything that includes divinity then I highly disagree for the obvious reason that nothing can become religion without anything that includes divinity. An issue or idea can certainly be or become dogma but that does not equate religion by this definition.

In other words, in order for me to agree with you on this (reluctantly), religion has to be defined as dogma, only. But that's a definition in very scarce supply, I think.

Sorry, it's been so long. I've been very busy and haven't had time to post. I still don't have a ton of time now so I will have to try and be brief. You are right about one thing, I have been confusing how scientists use the term "theory". My apologies there and thank you for pointing that out. In general, however, I do still stand by what I said before about Florida taking the right route in teaching both evolution and creationism. In many cases I feel that Mrs. M sums up what I would say pretty well.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

I also think schools should teach languages, arts, history and geography but none of it should be taught in math class. That's not overly interesting, though, since no one would confuse those subjects (or, rather, I hope not). While it may be interesting in itself to teach parts of certain religions over other religions, thereby continuing the debate about imposing certain religions, it's not overly interesting to hear about creationism being taught as a religious subject.
What is interesting is when people confuse it with science and starts suggesting it should be taught in science class. Is that what you stand by?

I have figured a way for the ID debate to be solved.....Russian Roulette. Everyone that feels religion should be taught in the classroom gets the first turn. GO!

__________________
Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity.
Calculate what we will or will not tolerate.
Desperate to control all and everything.
Unable to forgive your scarlet lettermen.
--Tool, The Grudge

I just thought I'd give all you ugly atheists some additional information.