BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was
less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was
using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I
think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science
--
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny
that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic
best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not
our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not
our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies. Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

cheers,
frtzw906

First, if the burka wearing woman was being raped, and was screaming
for help, would you interfere in another culture? If she said she did
not want to wear a burka any longer would you insist on her being free
to do as she liked. You say you are reviled by the lack of choice, but
would you feel justified to get involved to change the status quo?

Secondly, it seems that we must get into it, so I will a little.
Science has a theory, called Evolution. Lots of info, and not all
supported, so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

Kansas (and other) school boards say that both theories have to be
taught equally as theories. Neither can be taught as the only
explanation.

Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.

I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.

It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict. If the teacher restricts himself to equipping his
students to go into the field and observe facts, he will still have a
job to pay the mortgage, etc.

I say these things as a person who is first a Christian, and secondly
an observer. I am interested in Astronomy, Geophysics and Geology,
Archaeology, and other areas not so scientific, like UFOs and Crop
Circles, Lay lines and ancient structures like Pyramids of Egypt. I
wonder about Coral Castle in Florida, and the Granite Butterfly. We
live in a wonder-full world where I try to keep all my options open.
TnT