>I notice that Mr. Easterbrook doesn't suggest in which non-science
>class Intelligent Design non-science controversies should be taught.
Prior to the 20th cent 80% of the population made a living by farming,
logging, fishing . . . .
Thus the vast majority learned their "life skills" at home or on the job.
Hardly anyone went to school to learn how to make a living. Except for
the professions, teaching, medicine, engineering . . . even college
credits were mostly in the classics and philosophy.
It wasn't until John Dewey and the shift to repetative factory work that
grade schools and high school switched to teaching technical trade stuff
specifically to qualify the students to do factory work. When I graduated
from high school in '58 I could have handled most of the availabe jobs
except for those which required an apprenticeship.
Thanks to the egalitarian dumbing-down of the American school system
there isn't much of anything being taugh in public schools. The official
policy comming out of Washington is the "educational" goal is a minimum
qualification for basic entry level blue collar and clerical jobs.
The point being that the typical kid doesn't have the need or the ability
to understand anything about abiogenesis or any other kind of genesis.
The entire argument is rediculous until high school graduates can again
read and write.
billwald@juno.com
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 00:00:19 EDT