Knowing them they’d turn your idea around on you. Replace ‘Hitler Youth’ with ‘Darwin Youth’ and Myers would wet his pants with glee.

Imagine their reaction if we were to add, say, military training to compulsory public education. Get their kids up to speed in how to survive in nuclear/biological/chemical warfare situations, how to fire and maintain an M-16 automatic rifle, cover and concealment, overlapping fields of fire, and things of that nature. I bet they’d all of a sudden discover in themselves a fervent belief in being able to “just say no” to compulsory public education.

You know, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to add some compulsory basic military training to public education. Check me on this but I think it’s likely that more children choose to become soldiers than biologists. Shouldn’t we then prepare them for the former choice equally as well as the latter?

Myers made a comment discussing Palin about this. She believes parents should be able to opt their children out subject areas (evolution for example) they don’t want them taught. Myers thought this should not be allowed. That parents should not get a say.

I believe Massimo’s ideas are there to purposely lay a foundation for the future removal of these type parental rights. It’s really a 1984-like idea.

Why the harsh words?

1- The Executive office does NOT state the education policy. GWB is a Creationist and creation is NOT being taught.

2- Education is NOT about indoctrination of a belief- and the theory of evolution- that is universal common descent via an accumulation/ culling of genetic accidents- is just that, a belief.

3- Massimo should shut up and start putting up- that is actually doing some research to confirm his beliefs. because-

4- That is why ID and Creation exist- because Massimo and his minions cannot support their belief.

Kauffman presents some interesting stuff here that is rather close to ID.

Somebody with the power, please start a new thread with these links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

kind regards
AMir

Sailors have long known something was up, because they could see the sail of a ship before they could see the whole ship. To some extent, the Cyrenaens simply quantized what Greek sailors had long seen with their eyes.

A lifetime land-lubber, for whom a flat world has worked time and time again–say a builder/engineer–would be out of bounds to explain away the persistent witness of a sailor in such matters. But he lives in a world where it matters not a whole lot.

We live in a world where a round earth matters. But it matters because it’s a frequent enough impression. It’s hard to see how you would not see it when taking a high-elevation flight–and it is also persistent enough to the navigators’ whose course depends on the curvature of the earth. But also it’s used daily in the increasingly-common GPS.

See as our capabilities have grown they have broken down the barrier between the seemingly flat earth and the curvature of the earth into a more or less common thing.

Of course, it’s the power of the negative here which says that projecting a default assumption that works locally to a global scope is problematic. This should be in the arsenal of any student where we represent that we are trying to teach them “critical reasoning”.

That makes Pigliucci’s argument a straw man. “Debating both sides” does not directly imply “concluding” anything. Pigliucci contrasts the idea of a debate with information on each side to one a content-less one where students can “conclude what they think”.

I am not a proponent of ID, but I see waves of the straw man army when I look at the anti-ID side.

No I didn’t click on the link, I didn’t see it at first but it was reasonable for you to assume that I would have so no worries.

Pigliucci vs Dr. Dino:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM&e