Amazing how ill-reasoned Darweens are.
Brings to mind “deceiving and being deceived”.

I am not a “Darween” nor am I trying to deceive anyone.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

I agree with you here, but what you are suggesting is that we not restrict ourselves to an absolute truth, which makes the comment by,

Seversky @10,

Of course, if that is true for science then why not for other subjects as well? Why shouldn’t children be presented with detailed brochures for all the world’s major religions and left to choose which, if any, they find most appealing?

equally valid.

But O’Leary was arguing, in effect, that experts or other authorities should not pick and choose what students are taught. They should be taught “both sides of a question” and left to make up their own minds.

So who is to say that flat Earth theory or astrology shouldn’t be taught? And on what grounds? Remember, the students should be allowed to decide for themselves. No one should decide for them.

Of course, if that is true for science then why not for other subjects as well? Why shouldn’t children be presented with detailed brochures for all the world’s major religions and left to choose which, if any, they find most appealing?

Yet I have heard little or nothing of anyone proposing teaching astrology, flat earth or alchemy in public schools.

Sev is using the usual Darwinian diversion + equivocation tactic – otherwise known as smoke and mirrors.

i.e. Equivocate ID (in this case) to long outdated and known falsehoods and then go from there as though the equivocation were valid!

Darwinism is the biological flat earth of our day – so where are his complaints of teaching such salient balderdash?

Amazing how ill-reasoned Darweens are.
Brings to mind “deceiving and being deceived”.

Astrology was NOT an unreasonable idea, in its origin. After all, it was reasonable to suppose that the stars determine our destiny.

Everyone assumed that the stars were bigger than us and had more power than us.

The cosmology made a lot of sense, in principle, unless you knew a reason to oppose it.

But the idea did not happen to be true, so it failed on the evidence, just as Darwinism is doing today.

Re: 4

Exactly. The reason ToE and Global Warming skepticism should be addressed is precisely because a significant number in the scientific community have offered not only their skepticism, but reasoned alternatives.

Flat Earth ‘theory’ is not a reasoned alternative to modern cosmology, and astrology is no where near a reasoned alternative to modern astronomy. Seversky sets up yet another straw man for us to easily tear down….er…tip over with a slight push (is more like it).

“Does treating both sides equally mean teaching flat Earth as well as oblate spheroid Earth theory?”

No one with any “standing”, that I am aware of, believes the Earth is flat, or that the earth is an oblate spheroid is just a theory. Can you point us to someone in the science community who believes this?

Unless you are suggesting that there is a cabal of climatologists who have been seduced by the Dark Side of methodological naturalism just like evolutionary biologists. Is Richard Dawkins secretly a Sooth Lord plotting to take over the world of science abetted by his evil apprentice Darth Myers?

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

That sounds reasonable on the face of it but it raises some awkward questions.

Does treating both sides equally mean teaching flat Earth as well as oblate spheroid Earth theory? Does it mean teaching both astronomy and astrology? Should we teach the four Elements – fire, water, earth and air – as well as the periodic table?

In other words, does giving students the opportunity to make up their own minds mean that all theories, regardless of their true standing in the scientific community, should be presented as if they are all equally valid and well-founded?