Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A chance to be a pro-science activist!
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 31 of 57 (193922)
03-24-2005 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NosyNed
03-23-2005 8:31 PM


Re: Does this contribute anything?
Why ? what's the point? I think Eta has the best system, he tailors the length of his response to the actual points worth answering. If you can point me towards anything but a dodge in there I'm happy to discuss it with him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2005 8:31 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 57 (194088)
03-24-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
03-24-2005 3:34 AM


As for my facts the article you quote does not mention any review of the other donation. So it confirms my point.
There are numerous flaws here.
1. You don't specifically point out how it doesn't mention any review. This is just an unexplained assertion.
2. I quoted both an article and the transcript of the e-mail posted by schrafinator. So unless you want to argue that both of those are wrong and that the Lenny Flank, who made the donation, misquoted the Pandas book as being reviewed, you have no credibility.
3. Even if there no mention of the Pandas book being reviewed, it does not mean that the the books weren't reviewed; it simply means we don't know whether or not they were reviewed. Your burden of proof is to cite something specifically saying that the Panda books were not reviewed.
ID is a way-out speculative view that has got nowhere scientifically. That is a fact - and it deals only with ID as science. Qute frankly if you object to such an assertion - which does not even touch on the really controversial aspects of ID - then I really have to say that you are in the grip of overwhelming bias.
I'm pissed off at being accused of being fed by a propaganda machine, believing a nonsense science, etc. for simply believing in intelligent design. I'm a 4.0 junior at my high school who is taking 4 AP exams this year, and I've also attended the 2004 Missouri Scholars Academy, which is offered each summer to the 330 most academically talented sophomores in the state. I have a capability to think for myself, so don't accuse me of being deceived by a propaganda machine.
To say that ID is a scientific nothing--that the Kansas school boards are teaching a scientific nothing, that organizations like Access Research Network and the Center for Science and Culture are promoting a scientific nothing, that all this controversy was generated by a scientific nothing, is an assertion which you are incapable of proving.
I do not understand how any progress can be made on a creations versus evolution board and how it can have any purpose if you want to maintain that it is a fact that ID has gotten nowhere scientifically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2005 3:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kjsimons, posted 03-24-2005 3:42 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2005 5:15 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 03-24-2005 5:52 PM commike37 has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 33 of 57 (194095)
03-24-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by commike37
03-24-2005 3:28 PM


Mike, you've been deceived by a propaganda machine!
Seriously, ID is a scientific nothing, the Kansas school boards wanted to teach a scientific nothing and .... (you get the picture).
I do not understand how any progress can be made on a creations versus evolution board and how it can have any purpose if you want to maintain that it is a fact that ID has gotten nowhere scientifically.
Unfortunately for the ID proponents, this is a fact. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. Now it has to be scientific evidence, be able to pass a peer review, be reproducable, you know the usual stuff that science has to be able to do to pass muster. Nobody yet has presented a falsifiable theory for ID, maybe you can be the first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 3:28 PM commike37 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 57 (194143)
03-24-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by commike37
03-24-2005 3:28 PM


Well it seems that you have a problem with rational argument.
It is impossible to prove that something is not mentioned without quoting the entire article. Since that would be both a copyright violation and an abuse of this board I did not do so. If you wish to claim that the donation of was specifically reviewed based on the article it is up to you to produce the quotes - because that IS possible without violating copyright or abusing the board. But you did not.
2) I do not need to argue that the transcript is misquoted - it could, for instance be incorrect.
3) The fact that there was no mention of a review refutes your claim that the article states that there was such a review.
So here is a question - was Pandas and People reviewed for scientific accuracy ? By qualified people ?
York Daily Record
Nilsen said Friday that the books had to be reviewed to determine their educational appropriateness and to make sure they’re scientifically accurate.
And please understand that if you don't like something that doesn't make it true. No matter how much you object to the fact ID as science is just a way-out speculation that hasn't got anywhere it remains a fact. IF you want to argue otherwise then produce the evidence to the contrary - don't just complain that you hate what people are saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 3:28 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 57 (194170)
03-24-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by commike37
03-24-2005 3:28 PM


This is more serious than the other threads so I'm not going to be sarcastic with you here...
I'm a 4.0 junior at my high school who is taking 4 AP exams this year, and I've also attended the 2004 Missouri Scholars Academy, which is offered each summer to the 330 most academically talented sophomores in the state. I have a capability to think for myself, so don't accuse me of being deceived by a propaganda machine.
Congratulations on your abilities. This does show some merit. However you need to keep in mind that brilliance does not make one less susceptible nor impervious to propaganda. Propaganda attacks emotions or other reactionary elements and allows us to skip by logic and evidence.
Brilliant people have been suckered right down through the ages, and I know three people personally who were brilliant and yet somehow got suckered by ID theory.
I am not saying that you were a sucker, or that anyone that believes in it must be a sucker. Personally I do believe that those who are not, have simply not fully explored ID, including its metaphysical expectations regarding how science needs to operate in the future.
There are possibilities for ID to have some utility, and I even opened a thread a long time ago to explore that issue. Guess what? No ID theorists showed up and instead a bunch of us evos batted around some ideas. This did not bode well for ID confidence in their own theory.
I also opened a thread (which CK pointed to) asking for ID theorists to present any new research developed by anyone within ID. It has also remained silent as a tomb.
I realize Ned and Jar have set up a new thread, but if you specifically have info on research (nothing pre 2000) which ID theorists have conducted, I hope you will show up in that thread.
I am open to the possibility that ID can do something, but I have yet to see anything actually done. I am also disturbed by some of its proponents who appear to be demanding modern science be revoked in order that ID's preliminary theories can be called scientific findings. That does tend to lend an impression that ID is not actually a science, or has not gotten anywhere scientifically.
However I am open to discussion and look forward to something interesting from an actual ID theorists (many so far have resorted to creationism).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 3:28 PM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by joshua221, posted 03-25-2005 10:56 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 03-26-2005 1:55 AM Silent H has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 57 (194412)
03-25-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
03-20-2005 9:02 PM


Because of "the holocaust" having happened not too long ago, a world war, and a lot of evidence, It's taught that it actually happened.
ID is just an alternative to a sketchy history.
You forget that students sort of forget to question things in school. They start to think that whatever a teacher says is truth, and questioning it is a waste of time. They become desensitized. This would be abolished if some things were questioned for them, or rather another opposing view was put into the picture.
I've noticed good teachers do this, like my biology teacher. He sort of mutters about certain things that puzzle biologists about evolution. Although ID is far too extreme, looked upon as an equal to Greek or Roman Mythology. When to me it's just the alternative to a dark world of survival, where love and life is completely lost.

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 9:02 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-26-2005 10:12 AM joshua221 has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 57 (194414)
03-25-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by coffee_addict
03-21-2005 12:55 AM


quote:
we could also begin teaching the flat earth "theory" as an alternative to the somewhat spherical earth fact.
Truly original.
quote:
We could also teach the fake moon landing conspiracy theory as an alternative historical explanation for the apollo program.
This was a step back from schraf's post, next time don't bother.

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 03-21-2005 12:55 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by kjsimons, posted 03-25-2005 11:00 AM joshua221 has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 57 (194416)
03-25-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
03-24-2005 5:52 PM


quote:
Brilliant people have been suckered right down through the ages, and I know three people personally who were brilliant and yet somehow got suckered by ID theory.
This "machine" seems to be sucking people into evolution, look at the majority of public schools.
You are right though, although the science of ID really is the last thing on my mind. I don't like this mentality that is given off of evolution, I don't want to be just another pawn in the animal kingdom for nature's wrath. I know of no real evidence scientifically for ID. That doesn't bother me.

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 03-24-2005 5:52 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 03-25-2005 12:18 PM joshua221 has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 39 of 57 (194417)
03-25-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by joshua221
03-25-2005 10:49 AM


we could also begin teaching the flat earth "theory" as an alternative to the somewhat spherical earth fact.
Truly original.
We could also teach the fake moon landing conspiracy theory as an alternative historical explanation for the apollo program.
This was a step back from schraf's post, next time don't bother.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may not like the content of Lam's post, but both those examples are valid comparisons of what ID is like to mainstream science. Perhaps you could explain in more detail why ID should be given any more consideration than other crackpot theories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by joshua221, posted 03-25-2005 10:49 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by joshua221, posted 03-25-2005 7:19 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 57 (194434)
03-25-2005 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by joshua221
03-25-2005 10:56 AM


This "machine" seems to be sucking people into evolution, look at the majority of public schools.
I've been to public schools. What machine?
Are you seriously suggesting that a science teacher telling students that the current best scientific model of species diversity is the ToE is some wort of lie? Propaganda?
If the ToE is not the best current model, what is?
On the flip side, what I was talking about, is some very smart people who ended up embracing ID theory as "truth", based on false information which prayed upon their emotions and desires and made them miss some very massive holes in logic and evidence.
I don't like this mentality that is given off of evolution, I don't want to be just another pawn in the animal kingdom for nature's wrath. I know of no real evidence scientifically for ID. That doesn't bother me.
If this is not the perfect example I am talking about, I don't know how it can get much clearer.
Science is not about how things should be, or you want them to be, or even what you think will end up being the underlying metaphysical "truth". Science is about building models of natural phenomena using the most accurate (encompassing) descriptions of how evidence fits together.
If you son't want to be a pawn in the animal kingdom, don't be one. That doesn't mean you have to reject that the best model we have is the ToE.
Personally I'd rather be a pawn in the animal kingdom, than a pawn for a bunch of ignorant rich guys trying to take my money by telling me comfortable lies.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by joshua221, posted 03-25-2005 10:56 AM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by joshua221, posted 03-25-2005 7:29 PM Silent H has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 57 (194517)
03-25-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by kjsimons
03-25-2005 11:00 AM


Thing is, it was already addressed, he was just having fun. Saying stuff i heard when I first came here
This message has been edited by prophex, 03-25-2005 07:30 PM

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by kjsimons, posted 03-25-2005 11:00 AM kjsimons has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 57 (194518)
03-25-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
03-25-2005 12:18 PM


quote:
I've been to public schools. What machine?
The machine that you (or commike) mentioned in the post i replied to.
quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that a science teacher telling students that the current best scientific model of species diversity is the ToE is some wort of lie? Propaganda?
I realize the evidence is in evolution, but I also realize that people accept it as truth without question. In any situation this really isn't good.
quote:
If the ToE is not the best current model, what is?
A better model would be one that does not give humans ideas of survival, working against, and trying to get on top of one another. Lives of competition.
quote:
Personally I'd rather be a pawn in the animal kingdom, than a pawn for a bunch of ignorant rich guys trying to take my money by telling me comfortable lies.
Being a pawn sucks. The rich guys tell me to take part in the american dream, competing for a home and a nice family. The one creationist I met was poor, and sought truth. Although his arguments were sometimes flawed.

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 03-25-2005 12:18 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 03-26-2005 4:16 AM joshua221 has replied
 Message 53 by contracycle, posted 04-01-2005 6:41 AM joshua221 has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 43 of 57 (194577)
03-26-2005 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
03-24-2005 5:52 PM


Schraf writes:
As those of you following the Dover ID fight may already know, the
DebunkCreation email list at Yahoogroups.com recently donated 23
science books to the Dover High School Library to counter the school
board's decision to teach ID in its school.
OK...so the books were written by...
York Daily Record writes:
Some of the books are written by noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. All support scientific methods and theories that include Darwin’s theories of evolution.
And while I do respect these particular authors for their science knowledge, I have no respect for their atheist philosophies. One would think that men who were so intelligent could see the obviousness of God in action.
NIV writes:
1 Cor 1:20-21 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
While I may agree that science and the ToE is a more concise grouping of theories and certain facts, I must point out that the objection that many have to the inclusion of such authors is their atheist backgrounds. They do not understand the truly important things in life if they do not consider the possibility of a living and loving Creator. We want our kids exposed to all sides, but we will not be bullied into keeping our spiritual philosophies kept out of the classroom and allowing atheists in. Its gotta be both!
Nevertheless, I would never advocate banning science books any more than I would advocate dismissing religious philosophy.
Prophex writes:
People protest ID in schools, that's funny. Why eliminate it because of disagreement? I don't see a reason why it would harm the student body.. rather, open new ways of thinking. As long as it isn't one-sided.
Exactly! Just as evolutionists protest I.D. "pet" theories based on the suggestable inclusion of a supernatural Creator, so too do creationists and/or theists protest scientific thought NOT because of the soundness of the science so much as the atheist undertones that such literature may suggest.
Carl Sagan writes:
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. And...Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
This is why many of the "ignorant" Creationists say that scientists who are atheists see science as their religion.
York Daily Record writes:
Intelligent design maintains that life is too complex to have developed on its own and was created by an intelligent designer. Some say it is religious in nature and has no place in a science classroom; others say it is a legitimate, scientific alternative to the state standard of teaching Darwin's theories on evolution.
If Sagan can say that "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality"...then Creationists will always insist that their "source" of spirituality be given equal time.
I am not suggesting that I.D. is anywhere nearly as "intellectual" or "provable" as straight up science. What I will insist upon is that MY source of wisdom---God--be allowed to be entered into ANY discussion on the origin of life. No school will ever keep my kids from keeping this in mind as they explore the various theories and facts regarding the beginning of all that we know.
Schraf writes:
What the ID folks have done is the equivalent of the Dover school board requiring their history teachers to teach the notion that the Holocaust never happend as a valid alternate view of the historical evidence.
All that I am saying is that God is a valid alternative to atheistic science. The facts are not conclusive that there never was a Creator.
commike writes:
The existence of an intelligent being is much more debatable than whether or not the Holocaust happened. A much more appropiate analogy is whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War. There are many theories as to what caused the Civil War. And there are many theories over the origins of life: evolution, intelligent design, and some others like the Gaian theory.
Exactly. The inclusion of a Creator as a valid alternative MUST be considered. We can prove that the earth is not flat. We cannot prove that there is no God.
PaulK writes:
Why would "teaching all sides of an issue" preclude accepting books on mainstream science, regardless of the motive for donating them ?
Why would there need to be a review before accepting these particular books for a school library when it is not a normal procedure for such donations ?
Good point, Paul. I agree.
crashfrog writes:
But maybe until ID constitutes a little more than some misleading statistics and a few self-published books, it doesn't quite merit inclusion in science instruction, where we teach that which represents the mainstream and not the fringe?
The issue as I see it is to prevent the idea of a Creator from being labled "fringe".
In my opinion, Richard Dawkins is as dangerous as any religious ideology. The supreme arrogance of being able to dismiss the idea of a Creator as akin to magic is not something that I want my kids to be able to read if religion is to be kept out of their education.
Dawkins preaches that human wisdom is our salvation and our ultimate quest. I am all for education as long as ALL sides are presented.
Schraff is right in pointing out that the books were to go to the library and not in the curriculum.
Let the books be placed in the library.
holmes writes:
However you need to keep in mind that brilliance does not make one less susceptible nor impervious to propaganda. Propaganda attacks emotions or other reactionary elements and allows us to skip by logic and evidence.
And my view is that Dawkins has a propaganda all his own. He is no mere scientist. He claims that
Dawkins writes:
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
I would say that the same holds for his smug atheistic beliefs.
And I would consider him to be a bit wicked...
I want to be a pro science advocate as long as scince continues to keep God as an unproven theory worthy of discussion and not a fringe belief of an ignorant minority.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-25-2005 11:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 03-24-2005 5:52 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 57 (194603)
03-26-2005 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by joshua221
03-25-2005 7:29 PM


I also realize that people accept it as truth without question. In any situation this really isn't good.
You are correct. Everyone should question their beliefs and models.
A better model would be one that does not give humans ideas of survival, working against, and trying to get on top of one another. Lives of competition.
Ahem... Moses commited genocide, the Jews commited genocide, the Xians commited genocide, the Muslims have to some extent attempted genocidal purges. The current "culture war" is a concept developed by and propagated by fundementalist Xians, because as they put it the Xian worldview is in danger (in competition with others) and Xians must fight to stay on top of other beliefs.
The ToE doesn't say anything about social "darwinism" which is made be people quite ignorant of what the ToE is about. Most of evolution appears to be driven by environmental changes, or entities moving into new environments, not how best to kill and dominate each other. It just so happens that the ranks of better adapted creatures will thrive.
One might note that the rabbit's introduction to Australia swamped it with rabbits. They weren't the killer rabbits from Monty Python's Holy Grail, they just had a wide open niche.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by joshua221, posted 03-25-2005 7:29 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 03-26-2005 4:32 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 50 by joshua221, posted 03-30-2005 11:33 AM Silent H has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 45 of 57 (194609)
03-26-2005 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Silent H
03-26-2005 4:16 AM


Paradox
holmes writes:
The current "culture war" is a concept developed by and propagated by fundementalist Xians, because as they put it the Xian worldview is in danger (in competition with others) and Xians must fight to stay on top of other beliefs.
Oddly, I find myself agreeing with you. I believe that the Christian worldview and general ideas about prophecy are correct. Our own Bible
says that the coming kingdom (an internal transformation) is not of THIS world.
prophex writes:
Being a pawn sucks. The rich guys tell me to take part in the american dream, competing for a home and a nice family.
Aptly, human nature desires to "raise up." The Bible tells us to chill out and consider others better than ourselves. Why not allow the science/humanist/naturalist philosophies to be fully presented? Even if they are ultimately wrong, we are never going to have the world that we believe in without the return of Christ.
It is futile to attempt to establish a theocratic kingdom on earth where God is glorified and atheist teachings banned. Human nature ruins that societal model as well.
If what I believe is right, society will mess itself up without God and He will return. If what I believe is wrong, I won't be responsible for messing society up and being as much of a fundie as the Muslim terrorists. So....I am PRO SCIENCE.
I just don't want an atheist state. I fear it. I don't know why.
I guess that I don't think that we should have a theocracy either...so I believe that Christians should not attempt to control education.
I just want the kids to learn why I and others like me think the way that we do. It is NOT because we are ignorant idiots.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-26-2005 02:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 03-26-2005 4:16 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 03-26-2005 5:07 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024