[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Pious Perverts See other Pious Perverts Articles Title: Hey Board Members, Leave Our Kids Alone! Hey Board Members, Leave Our Kids Alone! by Jason Miller 12-2-5 Radically conservative Christians are attempting to shove a "Wedge" down the collective throats of Kansans, but some of us are not opening up and saying "Ahhhh". As a parent of a sixth grader at a Kansas public school, I assert that the six conservative members of the Kansas State School Board are abysmal failures at ensuring the intellectual growth of our children and have grossly violated a sacred parental right. In opening the door to introducing "Intelligent Design" into Kansas classrooms, the Kansas Board has advanced the "Wedge Strategy" of the Discovery Institute, which originated "Intelligent Design". "Intelligent Design" is a "theory" which rests solely on the observation that the complexity of the world "proves" the existence of a Creator. Per Discovery's own internal document called The Wedge Strategy: Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. Based on the Wedge Document (which can be found by Googling), it does not take much analysis to discern Discovery's agenda. And just think. The Bush administration and the mainstream media would have us believe that the Islamic world has a monopoly on religious fanaticism! Sneaking Christian teachings (in the guise of "science") into a secular public school system is incredibly deceitful. Rewriting the definition of science (which the Kansas Board has also done) is the height of hubris and ignorance. Calling Evolution (a legitimate scientific theory which has endured for over 100 years and which is supported by mountains of evidence and an army of scientists), a "dogma" AND suggesting a re-packaged version of the Creation Myth is a legitimate rival "theory", are beyond absurd. Once reason prevails and the six demagogues are voted off of the Kansas Board, perhaps our public schools in Kansas can get on with their true purpose of developing the intellect of our children. Parents have the sole right and responsibility of nurturing the spirituality of their offspring. The government needs to stay out of this very private matter. Jason Miller is a 38 year old activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. He works as a loan counselor in the transportation industry, and is a husband with three sons. His affiliations include Amnesty International and the ACLU. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/. Regards, Jason Comment Alton Raines 12-2-5 The "Wedge" may indeed be a dastardly approach, but secular humanism has forced the hand of these people to make such a move. The hypocrisy of modern scientism demands it. When you state.... "Intelligent Design" is a "theory" which rests solely on the observation that the complexity of the world "proves" the existence of a Creator." Well, evolution is a "theory" which rests solely on the observation that the complexity of the world "proves" that everything came about by random chance. Intelligent Design, despite the politics involved, is absolutely necessary in the face of corrupt status quo scientism which refuses to play by its own rules. It wants to be able to generate "naturalistic myths" in the science classroom, but disallows non-naturalistic myths. So in the end, what is the difference? The evidence and explanations for evolution are just as unscientific as they are for Intelligent Design -- both resort to filling in enormous gaps of knowledge with radical unprovables. Myths. So long as that is the reality of man's comprehension of his existence, why not allow non-naturalistic explanations into the science classroom? It takes just as much 'faith' to believe in evolution as it does Intelligent design! The Wedge Strategy may indeed by a calculated attack on materialism, secular humanism and evolution, but what's wrong with that? If evolution can't stand up to the light of scrutiny, it doesn't deserve to be in the classroom either. I recently saw a series of debates on CSPAN between several evolutionists and creationists, and one of the creationists asked the evolutionist, "Would you allow your high school students to read Darwins origin of species in class?" He said "No." WHY? Because Darwin mentions God 122 times and because Darwin makes incredibly racist conclusions, in fact, the true title to what everyone today commonly calls Dawin's "Origin of Species" was originally titled and printed as "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." It is a horrendously racist document. These debates were very revealing regarding both sides; both showed themselves to be politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. The evolutionist was putting blinders on the audience in order to make his examples of evolutionary "proof" work (ie, omitting important data which would cause further questions to arise -- this is the crux of the evolutionary conundrum; it does not want to be questioned regarding its validity! It is, in and of itself, a 'dogma' and the science textbooks are its pathetic catechism), and likewise, the proponent of Intelligent Design made no bones about it: The purpose of Intelligent Design in the classroom was to challenge the theory of evolution and limit the broad based effects of an entirely materialistic/naturalistic worldview. Its goal is to make questioning the dogma of evolution acceptable. As it should be. We want our kids to be educated, not indoctrinated. If given choices and opinions and options, they will learn to THINK. If strapped down to Orwellian pragmatics approved by secular humanism alone, they will intellectually perish! The "WEDGE" will force evolutionists to answer some hard questions they presently don't want raised in the classroom, which will show that evolution is a fantasy concocted of odds and ends of the natural world, but having little or no apprehendable cohesion whatsoever. The end result of this battle will not be a dissolution of the separation of church and state, but a better educational system which is already so freaking dumbed down by excessive liberal social engineering controls that Johnny can't breathe, much less read. Comment Daniel 12-2-5 Intelligent Design is not a theory. Other than the idea that life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously, what concepts or evidence do it's supporters offer? Are there any testable hypothoses? Has there ever been an experiment designed which could test the so-called theory? At least evolution puts forth the proposition that organisms change due to mutations, and that some mutations are more favorable than others. These mutations are evident in the fossil record. In the 1950's Stanley Miller proved that amino acids could form under conditions that simulated the early earth's environment. This may not be proof, but it is at least strong evidence in favor of evolution. Evolution does not rest soley on the observation that the complexity of the world "proves" that everything came about by random chance as stated by Mr Raines. The scientific method is to observe something, then formulate a hypothesis to explain it, then test the hypothesis, then compare the results to the original observation, then either discard, accept, or refine the hypothesis. Scientists from many disciplines have been working at this process since the time of Darwin. Have any of the supporters of intelligent design actually done any science? Of course none of this answers the real questions of our beginnings. If there is a Designer, couldn't he/she/it have designed evolution? If there is a Designer, how did he/she/it come into existence? Are these questions for a science class? No! These are questions for a Philosophy class. In the mean time, the students are going to be ill prepared for college science classes which will assume that they know about evolution. Maybe the teaching of evolution should include the holes in the theory. Maybe that would inspire students to look for answers. If you want your kids to get a religious education, send them to a religious school. Don't force religion into public education.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I posted this because I found this part particularly interesting: I recently saw a series of debates on CSPAN between several evolutionists and creationists, and one of the creationists asked the evolutionist, "Would you allow your high school students to read Darwins origin of species in class?" He said "No." WHY? Because Darwin mentions God 122 times and because Darwin makes incredibly racist conclusions, in fact, the true title to what everyone today commonly calls Dawin's "Origin of Species" was originally titled and printed as "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." It is a horrendously racist document. It seems that the modern evolutionists would not only ban the Bible and "Intellegent Design" from the public classroom BUT WOULD ALSO BAN THE CORNERSTONE OF THEIR OWN THEORY for secular politically correct reasons.
Well then Daniel, only tax people who send kids to public schools and don't force people to attend, or make it exceedingly onerous to opt for other venues... It's a two edged sword there, obviously if a minority wants to push a certain education standard, of any type, outside of the fundamental building blocks of learning its self, the majority is going to eventually be awakened from their slumber and push back.
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
I actually aggree with the author of this to a point, DON'T force religion on the public school system, END THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM!!! It is only of producing 'bots for the State and its phony "two party system" anyway and has been since its enception under Statist/Socialists Robert Owen and Thomas Mann. It was NEVER for the teaching of reading, writing, arithmetic, history and science as claimed. Even though none of them were formally educated an 1830's "mountain man" fur trapper knew more about his nation's constitution, government and history than a Harvard or Yale graduate knows today.
Oh, I agree with that. At the least, ditch the Education Dept and relenquish control and management back to the states.
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||