> >> But if one's argument is, let's not teach creation in school because
> it's wrong then it would be irresponsible to teach anything that isn't
> 100% proven to be correct.
>
>But to me, that's even more dishonest. The entire point behind teaching
>science and the methods involved is to not jump to conclusions. You can
>whitewash creationism with Intelligent Design misdirection all you want,
>but it still boils down to jumping to a conclusion - namely that your god
>created everything. That is not a logical conclusion by any stretch of
>the imagination.
>
>After a frustrating inability to solve a problem during a quiz in my
>Euclidean Geometry class in high school, I submitted the proof with some
>20 steps laid out, followed by the Divine Intervention Theorem, with the
>proof that segments arcs MN and GH were equal. Naturally, I didn't get
>the proof correct, but I did learn what I was missing to prove that the
>arcs were indeed equal. The Divine Intervention Theorem, for all my
>snarky applicability, wasn't acceptable, because it wasn't a logical construct.
>
>It's not the strongest analogy, but I'm fine with the idea that we don't
>know every answer to Life, the Universe and Everything (42). There are
>lots of things I don't understand, but I don't need to fall back on divine
>providence to explain the inexplicable to comfort me.
>
>- Jim
OK. I agree with you. My point is that if you say don't teach creation
because it's isn't scientifically proven, then it would be irresponsible to
teach anything else that isn't scientifically proven. The number of
theories and hypothesis that fall into can't be scientifically proven as
being 100% correct - too many to list.
Larry does make a good point that creation has no place because of the
nature of giving one religion a preference over another. And of course my
statements weren't directed at those people.
I personally don't care if they teach creation or evolution. I just want
my kids to be able to learn how to think and solve problems. I'm a
skeptic through and through. Like Hume, I laugh at the similar traits and
arguments presented by any group that claims a monopoly on the truth.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
