Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The Logic of the ACLU
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 59346523" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>Yes, he would be within his rights. I might not like it and think it's in bad taste (and I may even go as far as telling him those exact things), but that doesn't dictate whether or not he has the right to do so.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes, they are defending the law in that scenario as they should. However, they need to be consistent on when they decide to defend the law. Would the ALCU have the same approach if a science teacher presented info from the following sources?</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.icr.org/research/" target="_blank">ICR Research</a></p><p><a href="http://www.icr.org/science/" target="_blank">Evidence from Science</a></p><p> </p><p>I doubt they would.</p><p> </p><p>And yes, I know I'm going to get several posts saying that "The ICR isn't real science", and "make-believe" since I've already seen other posts that suggest that any research that doesn't end in a conclusion of 100% atheistic-evolution must be "ignorant".</p><p> </p><p>As I mentioned before, neither is officially a fact since that time has already passed and nobody was around to observe either. On one side, we have scientific studies that form educated guesses (which is the one I happen to side with from a personal standpoint) and the other has supposed eyewitness account passed down through history...neither side has concrete evidence so neither can truly be taught with the same scientific certainty as other scientific concepts like which elements are combustable, how blood carries oxygen, what causes earthquakes, and other things of that nature.</p><p> </p><p>If they're going to dictate how science can be taught from a perspective of fairness, it should be to allow both, or to allow neither. If they're going to dictate it from a Constitutional perspective, it should be to allow both.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 59346523, member: 123415"] Yes, he would be within his rights. I might not like it and think it's in bad taste (and I may even go as far as telling him those exact things), but that doesn't dictate whether or not he has the right to do so. Yes, they are defending the law in that scenario as they should. However, they need to be consistent on when they decide to defend the law. Would the ALCU have the same approach if a science teacher presented info from the following sources? [url=http://www.icr.org/research/]ICR Research[/url] [url=http://www.icr.org/science/]Evidence from Science[/url] I doubt they would. And yes, I know I'm going to get several posts saying that "The ICR isn't real science", and "make-believe" since I've already seen other posts that suggest that any research that doesn't end in a conclusion of 100% atheistic-evolution must be "ignorant". As I mentioned before, neither is officially a fact since that time has already passed and nobody was around to observe either. On one side, we have scientific studies that form educated guesses (which is the one I happen to side with from a personal standpoint) and the other has supposed eyewitness account passed down through history...neither side has concrete evidence so neither can truly be taught with the same scientific certainty as other scientific concepts like which elements are combustable, how blood carries oxygen, what causes earthquakes, and other things of that nature. If they're going to dictate how science can be taught from a perspective of fairness, it should be to allow both, or to allow neither. If they're going to dictate it from a Constitutional perspective, it should be to allow both. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The Logic of the ACLU
Top
Bottom