why do you think that? Because you feel it's 'reasonable', isn't that right? You want us to change school curricula because this is your idea of a reasonable opinion? What other opinions do you have? Do you think that we should change curricula based on the things that other people feel are reasonable? What happens if someone thinks it reasonable that all Malaysian kids should be taken out of school and put to work on factory production lines? Oh, you don't think that's reasonable? There are a few people who believe it is. There are also a few people think it's reasonable to teach that magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality or that the earth is exactly 1,967,568,346 years old. I think it's reasonable that people like you, and other like you, who would love to see critical thinking replaced by religious dictate, compassionate attempts at understanding the world replaced by superstition and idolatry, intellectual openness replaced with intellectual bigotry, and faith in the power of dialectics replaced with faith in the power of dreams and opinions, should be attacked at every turn. It's our moral obligation to do so. Does that seem reasonable?
If you think there was any implied threat in any of my comments, you are not much of an attorney. You are fully off topic with this particular distracted efforts of yours. Beyond off topic....
No where have I suggested teaching any of the specific opinions listed in response to kent's query of my opinion as to the origin of man. I expressly stated that I did not want any specific religious or religion taught in schools. My suggestion is to offer an alternative theory to the random chance origin of life theory that is being taught in schools. The design argument doesn't require the specifics, as it simply suggests the probabilty of design are greater than chance.
I don't see open and forthright individuals involved in this disucssion to engage to any great degree. I post my theory, they post theirs. Your obsession with me personally, taking all measure to distract away from ID and evolution, focusing instead on me, is however, most revealing.....
God has spoken to Z, and that is all there is to it. You will never get a concession from him, and no one can agree with his view unless that person suspends logic and reason. ID is a lame attempt to get around science, kind of like a virus, it seeks to appropriate science for its own agenda. Evolution has been built upon a long, sturdy, and vast foundation, and that is why scientists defend it so vigorously.
Scientists defend their belief systems, that hardly makes them unique in that practice. So consistent are the evolutionist defenders in their personal attack methodology. Shame they are unable to "evolve" out of such an illogical practice....
See what I mean. After defending evolution, dismantling the opposition arguments, what is left is to examine the belief systems of the anti evolutionists. Because faith is inextricably bound to the IDer's stance on evolution, and ID as a science is lacking, the issue becomes the personal, political and religious motivations of the ID proponent. Good night and Merry Christmas to all!