DSenette wrote:no, you don't have to teach one as more credible than the other....that's accurate. but you cannot NOT teach evolution adequately and still pass muster on the curriculum. so at the very least the base knowledge has to be there.
Maybe that's true (we've hit the limit of what I know about homeschooling), but that certainly doesn't meet the standards you set earlier where you questioned if anyone should have the option of making creationism-friendly books a part of the curriculum and then said that that sort of suppression was a good thing.
in my brain i'm imagining schools that are replacing the actual science curriculum with the not actual science curriculum and still trying to claim that they've adequately taught their children the science curriculum. like texas.
so, yeah, that book AS the science curriculum = shouldn't happen
that book as a bed time story after the kid had a real science class = i don't like it but whatever.
DSenette wrote:it can be dangerous to believe in intelligent design over evolution. it's no where near as dangerous as believing in creationism though
Why is believing in either dangerous?
believing in creationism is extremely dangerous because there is only one way to do that. and it's to ignore reality. you cannot have any kind of functional understanding of science and reality and believe in strict creationism.
intelligent design at least acknowledges reality and tries to cope with it by working in a possible framework where god could have had his lightning fingers in the mix. but it's still woefully incorrect and omits a lot of information from the ACTUAL process of how evolution works.
either results in children who are less educated, and less in touch with reality.
From the Wikipedia
scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method.
However, since, as I've said over and over again, those supposedly easy skills are not so easy to teach, you should see the problem. Most people don't make this connection. They use the language they understand. Not the reasoned word you would have them use. When you expect reason to work you damn well better not be ambiguous. DSenette, by now it is fairly obvious that you have no children, if you did you would know that children can use reason to come to conclusions that are patently absurd. Of course this is true of adults also. But children are in the process of ingesting a significant amount of context and data, in addition they are being pounded by hormonal changes, peer pressure, and a thousand other pieces of minutia, a process goes on well into the teens and beyond. This is why the pablum you are fed in school in school prior to college doesn't much resemble the world you will find in college. And it's also the reason why college is the place where all the things you want, start to happen.
the more we interact, the more i'm certain you're trolling me.
you seem to be under the impression that when i say "teach your kids the tools of reason, logic, and free thinking" that i mean "walk up to your child on their third birthday and place your hands upon their head. in a loud voice proclaim 'reason, logic, and free thinking. shamalamadingdong' and within three days they will receive their mensa card and from that day forward will never make a bad decision or come up with a stupid idea". which is simply stupid.
you also seem to believe the exact opposite would still work perfectly fine. do you walk up to your kids on their third birthday and say "these are the rules, this is all of the knowledge, go forth and multiply" and then expect them to never break the rules, not know something, or do some simply stupid shit? do you actually think NOT giving kids the tools required to be rational, logical, free thinking human beings makes them MORE likely to not do stupid shit as children?
you want someone to build a house, so you give them some tools. if you just give them a hammer they can't build a house. so you give them a hammer, and some saws, nail guns, etc... all the tools you could possibly need to build a house. still can't build a house without stuff to build it out of. so you give them the tools and then all the supplies. they still can't do it. so you teach them how to use the tools and give them a design for the house. now they can build a house.
however, if you only give them YOUR plans for YOUR house, and only teach them how to build THAT house and use the tools in the way you do it ONLY. then the only thing they'll ever be able to build is your house. if you give them the tools, the supplies, and the ability to design their own house, then they can do pretty much anything. does that mean that every house they make will be the best house on the planet? no, they'll probably fuck up sometimes. but so what, they've got the tools and the knowledge to realize they've fucked up and they'll be better equipped to fix the fuck up and not fuck up again
DSenette wrote:they are mandated to teach actual reliable science and certified curriculum, if they DON'T teach these things, then the diploma you get from the school isn't worth the paper its printed on when you go to apply for a college. the same applies to home schooling. you have to show a certain level of proficiency in the core actual curriculum, otherwise the diploma is trash. anything else that's taught outside of that is ancillary and doesn't matter. as long as the actual core stuff is taught, and the core stuff is always reality.
The first statement is wrong. There may or may not be a mandated curriculum which includes advanced science topics. See this
. And not everyone is going to college
evolution isn't exactly advanced science.
and yes, there are states like south dakota that have ridiculously stupid requirements (or lack of requirements), but if we based the things we do on the way south dakota does it, then we'd all be fucked quite frequently.