Jeez, I first thought this was satire it’s so facile. You do realize that physics classes don’t require understanding of time dilation and energy-mass conversion until pretty late in the game.
And the “because I don’t like it” is bullshit strawmanning. Some parents may think it’s a topic that doesn’t need covering in homeschooling. Do you expect everyone will homeschool the basic theories behind everyone domain of human knowledge? Or is it just because evolution is on the front of the culture wars that it requires teaching.
Sticking by what you said is not the same as supporting your assertions.
So evolution is the prevailing theory not of just biology, nor specifically how organisms came to be in their current form, but ALL OF SCIENCE? I had no idea. “Why’s the sky blue?” “EVOLUTION!” “What makes the stars bright?” “EVOLUTION!” “What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?” “EVOLUTIO-… oh, wait. Yellow.”
Bad analogy. You CAN have a knowledge of physics without having knowledge of E=MC[sup]2[/sup], though. Newtonian mechanics covers every situation an average person is going to find themselves in. You can even get into electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and all kinds of stuff - all more practical than E-MC[sup]2[/sup], without ever being given that formula. Yes, it’s a key formula. Yes, it’s important - to some people.
Again, spectacularly bad analogy. More apt would be “I can get through life without knowing the area of a Circle is Pi times the radius, squared.” Which is true. And if you don’t know anything about the spatial properties of circles, you really don’t care what Pi is equal to.
Where exactly do your lies rise to the level of criticism? My friend knows that certain plants flourish in the sun, and others in the shade. Does she have any knowledge of biology?
Dp you believe that it is *impossible * to have any knowledge of biology of without knowledge of evolution?
Can you show me how my statement necessarily leads to the assertions that
Do you understand what is meant by an abolute statement?
Where exactly do your lies rise to the level of criticism? My friend knows that certain plants flourish in the sun, and others in the shade. Does she have any knowledge of biology?
Do you believe that it is *impossible * to have any knowledge of biology of without knowledge of evolution?
Can you show me how my statement necessarily leads to the assertions that
What do you mean by my “logic?” I have merely asked Dio to explain an obvious overstatement.
Do you understand what is meant by an abolute statement?
I think jrfranchi’s position is that science teachers should model scientific inquiry and the scientific method. It’s fine to say evolution is not crucial to understanding biology, but permitting teachers to omit very important tenets of biology puts forth the notion that “science” is a cafeteria where we select the beliefs we find tasty, and refuse to even taste those things we dislike.
It sounded like you where advocating teaching basic biology without teaching the basics of Evolution.
Knowing that plants like sun or shade is not really Biological science it is more hobby.
Where exactly do your lies rise to the level of criticism? My friend knows that certain plants flourish in the sun, and others in the shade. Does she have any knowledge of biology?
Do you believe that it is *impossible * to have any knowledge of biology of without knowledge of evolution?
Can you show me how my statement necessarily leads to the assertions that
What do you mean by my “logic?” I have merely asked Dio to explain an obvious overstatement.
Do you understand what is meant by an abolute statement?
Right, it’s a strawman. The reasons people choose not to teach evolution is not neccessarily because it’s found “untasty”. Some people think education is for making someone capable of interacting with his world and the people in it, not to turn everyone into an egghead.
An absolute statement allows for no other possibility than the one stated. Such as “all swans are white.” The presence of a black swan refutes it. Words like ‘always,’ ‘never,’ and ‘impossible’ are clues that it might be an absolute statement.
It sounded like? That is what cause your leap of inference? And that was enough to raise your ire and write lies about me?
Who said anything about biological science? Knowing one fact about biology is all that is required to refute Dio’s statement.
Are you asserting that person’s whose hobby is biology have know knowledge of biology?
I think you are in over your head here. You need to recant and regroup.
An absolute statement allows for no other possibility than the one stated. Such as “all swans are white.” The presence of a black swan refutes it. Words like ‘always,’ ‘never,’ and ‘impossible’ are clues that it might be an absolute statement.
It sounded like? That is what cause your leap of inference? And that was enough to raise your ire and write lies about me?
Who said anything about biological science? Knowing one fact about biology is all that is required to refute Dio’s statement.
Are you asserting that person’s whose hobby is biology have no knowledge of biology?
I think you are in over your head here. You need to recant and regroup.
We are making the distinction between what we (or anyone else) might think is necessary for a good education, and what is mandated by the 14th amendment. I’m sure I’d be happy to send my kids to school with a curriculum that you yourself designed. But I wouldn’t say that that curriculum was mandated by the 14th amendment. See the difference?
Actually, children do have rights, but you are also wrong. Children don’t have a **right **to an education at all. Any state could simply decide that public education was no longer available to anyone. But even when the state does provide for public education, children don’t have a **right **to be taught about evolution (or any other particular subject).
I believe that evolution should be taught in school.
I am responding to your lies about me. Show me anywhere I stated evolution should not be taught in schools. Read my post again, and your response. Read what my post was in response to. If we are not arguing the same point it is because you disguised your point so well by arguing against something else all together.
I already quoted what I thought was an attack on Evolution being taught in school. What you said below appears to be anti-evolution. From what you just said, I mis-interpreted it. I was attacking the Anti-evolution position it looked like you were taking.
So: Please forgive me, I mis-understood what you were saying. Hopefully you can at least see where I made the mistake. I do apologize, I live next to a state were the public schools are preparing to teach Intelligent Design.
I am really sorry. I am :wally