>What's to be torn about? ID is a philosophy about the origin of the species >that centers on a Designer, a God. We know it's not science....so any class >that addresses it should be in the religious or philosophical study. QED.
Not at all. You're talking about what "we" know. However ID proponents obviously don't know the same things. They claim that ID is a science, pure and simple, not an intellectual exercise, not a religious philosphophy of life: a science. So is this class an admission that they are wrong or a way to "slip it in" - considering past tactics from the movement I would have to suspect the latter. If ID is presented as a scientific theory by it CREATORS then it has no place in a philosophy class. If it's not good science according to peer review then it has no place in a science class. Also importantly what is the point of a philosophy class who's sole stated purpose is to challenge a scientific mainstay? Would you be so accepting of other classes which mirror that structure? A class talking about the "philosophy" of a young or flat Earth which had as a core feature attacks on the current beliefs of ancient or oblate Earth? What about a "philosophy" class that taught nothing but the "facts" concerning the uselessness of western medicine? Or another that taught that the "theory" of gravity was false. The class's purpose (present an alternative to biological Evolution) is to challenge a subject OUTSIDE the class's domain (philosophy). I'm having trouble believing that you can't see the slightest thing questionable there. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:191989 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
