EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > I agree with most of what you're saying here. The answer always

lies

> > somewhere in the middle path. Maybe a balance can be found in

> > finding a neutral way of countering the atheistic conclusions

> > inappropriately drawn from science (this is another debate, but

> > making schools or anywhere else for that matter " religiously

> > neutral " is difficult if not impossible- someone's system of

beliefs

> > will always predominate). It seems reasonable to me that a

better

> > balance might be struck by intentionally teaching the inability

of

> > any one discipline or theory to fully explain something as

complex

> > as life and the universe, and also teaching a general

appreciation

> > for that complexity.

> >

>

> I'm not sure where this bit about 'atheistic conclusions drawn

from science' comes in.

I've heard people say " I don't believe in God- I'm an evolutionist

or I believe in science. " I don't think this is uncommon.

>Certainly, if there is some greater power in the universe, it could

design the rules of nature so that life could form out of inorganic

matter. Indeed - if there were such a greater power that was

omnipotent like the god you like to foce on others, why couldn't HE

create such a science, given that HE has created natural laws that

take care of so much else. Was it kind of like, he just couldn't

>solve that one last thing?

>

> It's certainly fine to address issues in any scientific course of

study about what is not explained by current science. It's certainly

fine to explain that the complexity of nature might be elusive given

limitations of our measurement capabilities, and our minds. However,

what is not OK and is part of your AGENDA is to bring god into the

mix. Obviously there is no such thing as total objectivity in life,

and certainly points of view are going to appear in public schools.

There's no way to avoid that. but you can leave GOD out of it, and

you can leave Christianity out of it. And it is offensive that you

want to bring it in.

>

The educational suggestions I offered were decidedly not religious.

Whatever " AGENDA " you claim is completely unfounded, and,

incidentally, a great example of the overblown fear of religion I

mentioned. But for the record, that the mention of a generic higher

power in the context of a classroom discussion infringes on some

atheist kid's rights is ridiculous.