tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14895585.post115928205743399441..comments2024-01-10T21:09:40.742+00:00Comments on davep's astronomy: Here comes the wedge...Dave Pearsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07460881163553899351noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14895585.post-1159717080786922722006-10-01T16:38:00.000+01:002006-10-01T16:38:00.000+01:00There seems to have been some favourable followup ...There seems to have been some favourable followup as well:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060929create.shtml" REL="nofollow">http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060929create.shtml</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14895585.post-1159349888158059592006-09-27T10:38:00.000+01:002006-09-27T10:38:00.000+01:00It's like someone pointed out in a post elsewhere:...It's like someone pointed out in <A HREF="http://mwillett.org/Debate/viewtopic.php?t=3649" REL="nofollow">a post elsewhere</A>: it's curious that they've got a menu item called <EM>Evidence for Evolution</EM> when the item <EM>Evidence for a Designer</EM> is notable by its absence.<BR/><BR/>As for me quoting from ekklesia, you now have to bring balance to the Force by quoting Dawkins <A HREF="http://pig.sty.nu/wittering/" REL="nofollow">on your blog</A>. ;)Dave Pearsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07460881163553899351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14895585.post-1159349145593388592006-09-27T10:25:00.000+01:002006-09-27T10:25:00.000+01:00Gosh, davep quoting ekklesia, I shall remember thi...Gosh, davep quoting ekklesia, I shall remember this ;)<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, it does worry me that this is lurking so close on the UK. And the site itself is too ruddy sneaky by far. If you've got a viable theory to be presenting, find a reputable scientific publication ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14895585.post-1159298670320222402006-09-26T20:24:00.000+01:002006-09-26T20:24:00.000+01:00Rich said:As for your son, if he is brought up in ...Rich said:<BR/><EM>As for your son, if he is brought up in a household that doesn't give any credibility to fundamentalist "theories" then I'm sure anything the school says about the controversy is unlikely to persuade him. The only people who see creationism as valid are people who were brought up by their parents to believe in it, no matter what the schools say.</EM><BR/><BR/>It sounds like a nice idea but I don't buy it. You don't have to be exposed to people who have a fundamentalist approach to this to accept the idea that teaching the so-called controversy is a form of "fair play". That's the point of the wedge, that's the whole idea behind intelligent design: don't talk about who or what the designer is, don't make predictions, simply baffle people with stuff about probability, simply boo at a working theory, disingenuously play with people's understanding of the word "theory" and then appeal to their sense of "fair play".<BR/><BR/>This isn't about the dangers of teaching Abrahamic creation myths in school, it's much worse than that. It's about adults carefully and systematically trying to abuse children's understanding of critical thinking.<BR/><BR/>That's the wedge: wear the cloak of science and hope that most people don't see that it's just a cloak.<BR/><BR/>The attempt at directly teaching creationism will come later.<BR/><BR/>Still not convinced? Consider how you must have noticed the irony of them using that Dawkins quote on their front page.Dave Pearsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07460881163553899351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14895585.post-1159292823052685722006-09-26T18:47:00.000+01:002006-09-26T18:47:00.000+01:00The rise of the "it is just one side of the debate...The rise of the "it is just one side of the debate" argument has been growing in recent years (think of the climate change "debate"). This is a great way to ignore (or misrepresent) the overwhelming observable evidence and try to make any viewpoint as valid as any other. After all, why base education and society on such annoyingly inconvenient things as evidence, logic and facts?<BR/><BR/>Recently, I noticed that an issue of a Jehovah's Witnesses magazine (possibly Watchtower) had an entire section dedicated to Evolution. You can probably imagine their stance. In fact, the tactics used in their articles seemed to heavily borrow arguments from groups such as the Discovery Institute. I was getting quite annoyed by their misleading and inaccurate nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14895585.post-1159291872036531242006-09-26T18:31:00.000+01:002006-09-26T18:31:00.000+01:00Did you notice they use a quote from Dawkins to re...Did you notice they use a quote from Dawkins to reinforce their view on the front page?<BR/><BR/>Yeeurgh, this kind of stuff makes me quite upset. But until sites like this are actually debated in the House of Commons we don't really have anything to worry about.<BR/><BR/>As for your son, if he is brought up in a household that doesn't give any credibility to fundamentalist "theories" then I'm sure anything the school says about the controversy is unlikely to persuade him. The only people who see creationism as valid are people who were brought up by their parents to believe in it, no matter what the schools say.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10432054711574735376noreply@blogger.com