Lest we forget:

The Wedge Strategy

Quote:The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Download of the scanned document available here: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

(January 2, 2012 at 7:02 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Evolutionary Biology is a very small part of an elementary education to begin with. My 13 year old sister is currently attending a private Christian middle school due to the wants of my parents. Her science education far out matches any public education because even though some aspects such as the beginning of creation are explained supernaturally, the fundamentals of science are still taught such as human biology, plant biology, chemistry, scientific method, etc. there is nothing wrong, in my mind, with allowing alternative views for the beginning of existence so long as each is held to the scientific method. The big bang, possibly the most widely taught theory for existence, is now being re-thought by the world's leading physicists, so why teach it as "fact"? I want the next generation to be open-minded and tolerant. One way teaching doesn't promote that.

Believe what you want...but you will find that I am now your oponent.

I will not allow you or anyone else to dilute public science classes.

and if I found out you were responsible for making it happen, I would do whatever I could to personally sue you as well as the school.

So...just keep your ideas in your head, and out of my sons science class....mmmkay?

You know, really this kind of horseshit pisses me the fuck off.

So, Perhaps, maybe you want to also teach "driving out demons" in medical school? After all, fucking jesus did a lot more of that according to that gospel crap than he did talking about the beginning of the universe?

Maybe you'd like to throw geocentrism into astronomy class. WTF, it's another theory, right?

How about babies being delivered by the fucking stork? Are you willing to go that far to pamper religious fools?

Kids have it hard enough without being taught a lot of backwards shit because their fucking parents are morons.

"Design theory promises to...."

I LOLed. So far it's been full of spectacular fail.

(January 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Teach "science" in science classes and let the motherfuckers teach religion in their churches.

I have no patience for xtian ignorance on this point.

Exactly..they have their own sunday schools for that horse shit...and its not MY fault that attendance to their sunday schools keep declining every year.

Hey...maybe it has to do with the fact that they are teaching OBVIOUS LIES to children who seem to be much more smarter than their parents here lately.

I'm seriously wondering why a Pantheist would be advocating bringing religion into science classrooms. That is, unless I'm completely missing what he's on about.

He might be full of shit, too.

Quote:We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID).

Apparently Perhaps agrees with shit like this.


Look at what they are saying...to replace materialistic scientific theories with what?

The supernatural of course....of the Christian protestant baptist persuasion of course.

(January 2, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You know, really this kind of horseshit pisses me the fuck off.

So, Perhaps, maybe you want to also teach "driving out demons" in medical school? After all, fucking jesus did a lot more of that according to that gospel crap than he did talking about the beginning of the universe?

Maybe you'd like to throw geocentrism into astronomy class. WTF, it's another theory, right?

How about babies being delivered by the fucking stork? Are you willing to go that far to pamper religious fools?

Kids have it hard enough with being taught a lot of backwards shit because their fucking parents are morons.

This post made me sooo happy.

Have I ever responded saying Creationism is correct? I said that I see no problem with it being explained as a theory. Children should be shown the evidence and have it compared to every theory available. Simply telling a child one thing is fact and all others are bullshit is not helping develop or mature the child.

My sister, for attending a private school and being taught supernatural explanations for existence, has placed two grade levels higher than any of the publicly schooled children in the district. The same is true for almost all of her classmates. This isn't to belittle anyone, simply to illustrate that supernatural teachings do nothing to hinder a child's learning.

Creationism comprises a very small part of science education, same with elementary evolution. I'd rather my child be taught scientific method and apply it to theories, as opposed to blatant "factual" information giving them a one-sided view of the world, regardless of how correct it may be. If you don't wish the same then simply vote against it. I explained my point of view, no need to attack me for it.