They never claim to be unbiased. In fact, they go out of their way on many shows to point out that they are biased. But, they are also in the right, and do more to let the other side have a say than most would.
They even openly state that people are allowed to think what they want in their homes, private schools, and churches. They only attack the people trying to infringe on our constitutionally protected freedoms and the guaranteed separation of church and State. Thus, the people trying to get creationism into public schools under the disguise of science.
If it is so important to parents that their children be educated that creationism is a real option then they should send their kids to a private schools, and not try to tell other people's children what they should or should not believe in.
Again, I'm not arguing about trying to impose one's beliefs on another. The facts should be taught, in my opinion, and then the theories that explain them. You, on the other hand, are trying to impose your beliefs on all children and hinder them from learning facts and from critical thinking - unless, of course, they're rich enough to send their children to private schools
( ... )
Religion is not fact, and has no business being in a public school no matter how you want it to be. There are other alternatives to public school. Like home schooling, Sunday bible schools (To learn what they won't teach in good public schools), or less expensive private schools. Grand Haven certainly has it's share
( ... )
Here's the problem. You're not understanding my point. I'm not suggesting religion be taught in schools. I'm suggesting science be taught in schools. Even facts that seem inconvenient to leading theories. And I am suggesting that instead of only presenting one theory to make sense of those facts, all valid theories based on facts be presented.
I'm approaching this in the same way I approach a peer-reviewed argument. That means my tone may sound harsh, but it is the language of scientific debate. I've included some of your statements to contextualize my replies
( ... )
It's not a problem. I understand perfectly well what your point is. I just think your wrong, know why you are coming at the argument the way you are, and was calling you out for it.
Taki has pretty much already stated way more about why than I could have, so I'm just gonna leave the rest alone and try for a truce on the issue.
Do you truly want a truce? Because I can't help but feel that what you actually want is for me not to reply so that you can take that as a surrender from me, a victory for you.
If you actually do want a truce, feel free not to read any more.
Well, the difference here is that in your thread you ASKED for our/my opinions, I tried to be brief, and I left to post my own views in my own intellectual space.
So, why should I let you post your views in my home unanswered? I invited you not to pursue this any further, but obviously we're both too stubborn to let it alone.
Because, as I have said before all we will do is fight without either of us changing the other's mind on the issue.
Yes, I do. Because you are talking about looking at data gathered from various sources not to derive a possible and unknown conclusion that fits the facts and other related proven theories and facts, but instead saying ‘here is what I, as a religious and learned woman, want to make convincing to people and choose to believe is fact for myself by pointing at tidbits of a much bigger picture
( ... )
Comments 18
Reply
They even openly state that people are allowed to think what they want in their homes, private schools, and churches. They only attack the people trying to infringe on our constitutionally protected freedoms and the guaranteed separation of church and State. Thus, the people trying to get creationism into public schools under the disguise of science.
If it is so important to parents that their children be educated that creationism is a real option then they should send their kids to a private schools, and not try to tell other people's children what they should or should not believe in.
Pesky by-laws.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not suggesting religion be taught in schools.
I'm suggesting science be taught in schools. Even facts that seem inconvenient to leading theories.
And I am suggesting that instead of only presenting one theory to make sense of those facts, all valid theories based on facts be presented.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Taki has pretty much already stated way more about why than I could have, so I'm just gonna leave the rest alone and try for a truce on the issue.
Reply
If you actually do want a truce, feel free not to read any more.
Reply
So, why should I let you post your views in my home unanswered? I invited you not to pursue this any further, but obviously we're both too stubborn to let it alone.
Because, as I have said before all we will do is fight without either of us changing the other's mind on the issue.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment