From: Bertvan@aol.com <Bertvan@aol.com>
>Bertvan:
>Merit is in the eye of the beholder. Let's encourage students to make
their
>own judgements of merit. While I doubt many will go for angels, the
question
>of whether the universe is the result of design, or the product of chance
>arrangements of matter acted upon by meaningless forces, is obviously
>debatable. If we are allowed to debate the question, why not school
children?
I have no objection to children debating any question that they're
interested in. The issue, though, is what should be taught in science
classes. Or maybe you think that science classes should be replaced by
debates?
If you mean that only the evolution lesson(s) should be replaced by a
debate, then why stop there? Lessons on pre-history, geology and astronomy
should be replaced by debates, to avoid discrimination against YECs. And
much of geography would have to be replaced by debates, for the sake of
Flat-Earthers (and we must remove all those prejudicial globes from the
classroom). And so on.
The point is, if science is to have any meaning at all, we have to draw the
line somewhere. And, since there are no valid scientific arguments for ID,
that should go on the non-science side of the line. If we can't agree on
what is and isn't science, then who are the best people to ask? Scientists,
perhaps?
Richard Wein (Tich)
"When I told people I wanted to be a comedian, they laughed at me. Well,
they're not laughing now!" -- Bob Monkhouse, comedian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 27 2000 - 16:34:45 EDT