well heres to global warming brainwashing. Currently becoming a syllabus mandate....

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

OK, if evolution becomes optional and has to be balanced, what about geology, which conflicts with the bible as to the age of the earth, as does chemistry and physics and astronomy.
The archeology of the middle east conflicts with the bible, so do you throw out all that too?
And then what if something conflicts with some other religion's book, do you make that optional too?

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Homeschooling offers some "unique" opportunities, unfortunately if you're actively running your business I don't see how you'd have time to teach. I still have no idea how homeschoolers deal with sciences that involve lab work like chemistry, physics, and biology. And there don't seem to be a lot of options for kids who are capable of higher level mathematics either.

I wonder why the creationists aren't railing on the Pythagorean Theorem? I'd love to watch them try and deconstruct it along with several of the other scientifically accepted theories running around.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I would imagine my wife or I would have to just focus on that full time. It would be rough. I don't think of myself at being a great teacher really. I do not even like to train people at the restaurant. I'm great at doing stuff but terrible at standing back and letting somebody else try something for the first time.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I could never do it either. Helping my kids with their homework showed me that. I can write a clear set of instructions for any process but face to face teaching is beyond me. Every time somebody bitches about teachers making too much money I think about how I couldn't do that job no matter how much it payed.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

I just do not have the patience for it. I know it is a weakness but I go bananas if I have to keep repeating myself.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Remember that Pythagoras had everyone convinced that the Sun orbited the Earth. Copernicus and Galileo proved him wrong, then Kepler proved that Galileo's theory of the Tides being caused by Inertia was wrong.
If any theory can't be held up to examination and criticism it becomes Idolatry of a sort.

Personally I figure that Evolution was a tool of Creation.
I also believe that a great deal of that which is accepted as Gospel as far as Evolution is concerned is based on very flimsy evidence.
Remember, the Book used to teach Evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial case is banned from modern schools because it was grossly innaccurate and blatantly racist.
Accepting the claims made in that book as fact set back understanding of evolution for half a century or so.

I agree. I don't think it should be taught as something that can't be tested and put up to scrutiny. However, I do feel that creationism or intelligent design which is creationism masked in scientific terminology makes for a good scientific critique. It's based on a thought about perceived complexity rather than actual evidence. If a credible scientific argument against it presents itself as a viable alternative then I would be all for allowing it in schools.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Calling a scientific theory a scientific theory isn't too bad, really.

Calling creationism (or ID) a scientific theory, on the other hand, is. "ID" is nothing like a scientific theory.
The OP doesn't know how to define "scientific theory". It's not like a hunch or a vague idea.

__________________
This is my signature.
There are many like it, but this one is MINE.
My signature is my best friend. It is my life.

Exactly. I get tired of some people saying "oh Evolution is just a theory" as if that is some sort of negative thing. A good theory can be repeatedly tested and stands up over time.

Hey now. There are biology classes and there are other classes. On that level of biology, evolution is merely part of biology just like genetics and morphology.

Ok, so be it. But it's no reason to pass non-scientific stuff off as science.

I guess that is why homeschooling is mainly done for religious reasons. The drive behind religious missioning is baffling. Somehow I don't imagine the same level of personal engagement when it comes to math (unless it's for pageant-type talent shows; but then it isn't math that creates the drive).

I'm having a hard time dealing with this kind of "argument". If all scientific issues are taught like that then you guys have a serious problem with education. However, if some scientific issues are taught like that and others aren't then you have a much more serious problem with education than you'd probably think.

Simply teaching science as science will avoid all such problems. Then there can't be no silly stuff like "it's only a theory" unless it solely comes from the necessary ignorance of religious dogma and not unnecessary ignorance caused by the education system.

I've never once said that creationism should be taught as science. IMO, it is something that can't be proven nor can it be disproven and those of us that believe it do so strictly on faith. I do have to wonder though, why are so many non-believers are afraid of that?

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I don't personally know any "non-believers" who are afraid of religion. I do know many who are offended by the attempts to mischaracterize religious beliefs as science and get those beliefs admitted to the public school science class. Actually I know alot of christians who are equally offended by it.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

It has little to do with folks being afraid of faith; rather it has to do with the proper classification of subject material. It may be more appropriate to teach (or mention) creationism in history, than in science. However, I have no problem with it being mentioned in a science class to give an historical perspective to the actual science that will be taught. But, it does not belong in that curriculum for study. In fact, creationism is not really a theory, rather it is a hypothesis.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'd say it's something to be concerned about. Some groups are trying really hard to introduce some sort of religious aspect into science classes. I'm not sure what the agenda is, and why they even bother.

I mean... they're trying really, really hard to get it in there, masking belief as science by manipulating language. "Pollution" of science is something worth being concerned about.

So, you can't prove or disprove creation. But you can't prove or disprove the existence of fairies or elves, either. There are things we don't know about gravity, and we could make up a lot of creative answers to explain this phenomena, but that doesn't cut it. There has to be a viable basis for our explanation.

I'm what you call a non-believer. There is nothing that implicates the existence of a supernatural being, and so, to me, it becomes nothing more than a creative explanation for something we do not yet understand.

If you're not satisfied with the few alternatives we have to explain the origin of life, and choose to go with the idea of a designer... well, how do you explain the origin of that? We're left with a new, unexplainable idea, but this far-fetched idea is one we can accept? Starting to sound a lot like middle-eastern religion to me. There is an almighty creator, and he has always been. Introduction of religious dogma: Success.

__________________
This is my signature.
There are many like it, but this one is MINE.
My signature is my best friend. It is my life.