Michael P. O'Connor

My Life

They say no ID in Science, but it is OK for a Philosophy class (some have said mythology class), but they are not happy with a Philosophy class with ID in it.

Categories: News, Politics

Comments: 2 Comments

Published on: January 11, 2006

The Mercury News is running an article on a class some California going to do on Philosophy class on alternative thought to evolution. There were many in the anti-ID groups that said that if you want to have it discuses in a public school (we are talking ID, and I would say I hope all forms, not just Christian Creationism, there are also Theistic Evolution, and there might be others, I am not sure). Well when they do it the school is sued for introduction ID in a public school. and for only 15 students to be enrolled in the class makes me think it is an elective, which it should be. I would say that if it was not an elective then I would have to take issue with the students being forced to take it, but if it is an elective then what is the problem?
Even the liberal John Dvorak said
A famous liberal on TV (I forget his name) commented that the death of the Liberals and the Democrats is because they cannot pick the right battles to fight. This appears to be an example. The study of philsophy will always entail religion in some form or another as a philosophical construct.
Oh well.
Well I guess it could be worse like when Dawkins said that faith-based education “child abuse” Well if that is the case I am glad that my mom “abused” me as a child by sending me to Christian Schools.

2 Comments

Max says:

January 11, 2006 at 8:07 pm

I have no problem with this, I think it’s great that alternates to evolution are being discussed, just as long as they are not in a science class. Since philosophy isn’t scientific (the entire field has no absolute concepts at all!), it’s a great way to introduce ID. I think they’re being paranoid about giving ID a beachhead. As far as Dawkins, it’s strange how I just looked him up today, I’ll get that book ‘The God Delusion’ later on. He’s definitely a radical as far as thought goes, so by quoting him, it’d be like quoting Pat Robertson, so watch it or I’ll label you a hypocrite =] I do think it’s funny that he compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, since Hussein is adamently secular and we’re trying to have religious leaders be in charge of Iraq, though we’re yelling at Iran for being religious… it’s all very confusing and hypocritical. What I think he means, or at least where the process is from is him talking about very deep religious zealots, not you Mike, I’m talking about the ones that rip out a woman’s clitoris so she doesn’t enjoy sex, the ones that force veils on them, the ones that treats women as second class citizens (similar to how the US, a ‘free’ country, treated women not too long ago). He righly blames religion on all those things, any religion that is taken too far is dangerous, just look at our enemy. I find it very very interesting how our enemy is very religious and how christian fundamentalists want to have US in the same religious category as Iran. Boggles the mind.
Michael P. O'Connor says:

January 11, 2006 at 8:25 pm

Max I was not saying that those that are suing are like Dawkins, I said at lest they are not that bad. It would be like some one on the left saying at lest I am not like pat robertson. It is a half compilent, and half insult to the person that I say “well they are not as bad as” I will admit I could have worded that alot better.