Education

I'm not a good linguist, just hyper-concerned and accountable.What publishable disclaimer(s), might you propose to keep the N.A.S. and/or 9th grade biology-educators in check. Perhaps, elaborate more on your daughter's. Or, what about your statement:"Evolutionary science couldn't possibly be talking about life's origins since it is, by definition, about living things."...seems like an excellent disclaimer to me.

This clams me up FO; now I request a minor apology.Note: you don't have to concede on anything I say; and I recant in hypocritically *backing you into a corner* out-of-the-blue.But, your (toned down) persistence is appreciated, in a probationary manner for now, in the hopes of promoting ”good will’, ”truth’, and/or 'appropriate feedback'. Here’s 3 (personally) necessary hypothetical conjectures that seem to me to salvage the currently 'flawed and perverted' ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. ... seeing it already delved too wrecklessly into its preposterous 'origins' propaganda (http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/):1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth
2) God (specially) created living entities
3) God (specially) created "psyches"I'm not advocating to write these hypotheses verbatum in 'an N.A.S. disclaimer'. A collection of judges (without my flawed-linguistic skills) may come up with something.The point being, I feel dreadfully accountable for 9th graders abused by biologists delving beyond their scope. How far into 'life's origins' do you want them to teach my 9th graders? Really?Also, consider commenting on NosyNed's controversal suggestions to this problem.

Pray tell, how far might that be (no more circling discussion please)?

(1) "Unconstitutional" seems to me like "unbiblical", oft-ammended/interpreted to mean almost anything (by both sides). Yet it seems to have evolved into an excellent "disclaimer" against all *vicars* in the US ...be it Pope, Darwin, Al Qaeda, N.A.S., Philip, or the like.(2) I concede, it sounds really really bad on science paper. But, the alternative theories of evolution for these 3 *key events* are really really bad flaws, puny scientists delving into infinitely-complex-mysteries; and/or worse yet: "science disproving science"The greatest flaw continues: science authority misrepresents itself to 9nth graders and (ignorantly) comes across as disproving all *spiritual events* to these children, beginning with these 3 *key* events.Science academia is most excellent, I agree ... But, we're know-it-alls, puffed-up, defensive, flawed, and clumsy... to various extents.Should little Sally fully trust everything she reads from Philip, Jar, the N.A.S. and other biology hirelings? They have sin, too. There's plenty of blame to go around.Who knows? ... Being 'cool' and pre-confessing our sins with public science disclaimers everywhere might actually benefit R&D, discoveries, genetic breakthroughs, etc. ... evoking more excellent science breakthroughs and fewer perverted flaws.-----------------------------
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. (Luk 17:2)

This is utter trash and nonsense!A disclaimer against false science in classrooms is humanistic and legalistic (i.e., to protect against freaky science)(Disclaimers need not be religious nor scientific): E.g.:"Don't believe everything you read"
"Theories are not always fact"
"Scientific flaws and gaps abound in the following material ..."
...etc.

Good point concerning scientific fact(s) (if there be such a thing).

Now how can perfectly valid science offend religion or perfectly valid religion offend science?The disclaimer is against assumptions of science as being perfectly valid.Because the current mega-ToE is not perfectly valid and is, moreover, seriously flawed and fluked; it must be disclaimed as flawed and such.