• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

ID and Sex Ed

E

e2iPi

New Member
arg-fallbackName="e2iPi"/>
So I was going through a couple of weeks worth of mail and came across something interesting. A local organization calling themselves "Fairness in Education" sent out some information on Intelligent Design and why it should be taught in our schools along side evolution. The basic "teach all sides and let the kids decide for themselves" drivel. I gave it to chuck pretty quickly.
Then, I come across another local group "Abstinence Promise Organization" who were decrying the concept that children in our schools receive sex ed if it is not an abstinence only program. I chalked this up to prude fundamentalist bullshit and was getting ready to toss it, when the similarities between this and the ID mailing caught my attention.

They had the same bulk rate permit on the envelope. They came from the same organization. So this got me to thinking, how intellectually dishonest do you have to be to justify in your mind the obvious dichotomy between these two positions? What happened to teaching all facts and let kids sort it out? If you accept either argument, it serves to diminish the other, does it not?

I doubt that anybody here is a proponent of either of these batshit crazy ideas, but the next time I hear someone promoting ID or abstinence only, I'm going to have to hit them up with the other, just to see. Of course if anybody does subscribe to these contradictory ideals, feel free to defend them. (I'm looking at YOU, lurkers :shock: )

If I think about it later, I'll make some scans of the envelopes.

i^2
 
arg-fallbackName="Ciraric"/>
Very interesting.

The thing you have to think about is that these people are always intellectually dishonest, but they don't view themselves this way.

They would say:

Creationism = Good knowledge
Non-abstinence sexual education = Dangerous knowledge.

The only thing is that they don't understand that it's similar in ways to how we view creationism as dangerous knowledge.
 
arg-fallbackName="ninja_lord666"/>
Ciraric said:
The only thing is that they don't understand that it's similar in ways to how we view creationism as dangerous knowledge.
Click to expand...
That I'll have to disagree with. Creationism isn't 'dangerous' knowledge; it's stupid knowledge. It's unscientific and doesn't belong in a science class. Now, if there was a school hosting a religion class, then I'd be fine with it because they'd be teaching science in science class and religion in religious class. It makes perfect sense...except for that whole separation of church and state and how public schools are an institution of the state...So, they can do it in private schools, but not public ones.

As for those two fliers, if you're surprised that creationists are hypocrites, then, I'm sorry to say it, but you really need get out from under your rock. They've been hypocrites since the Dark Ages. :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="e2iPi"/>
ninja_lord666 said:
As for those two fliers, if you're surprised that creationists are hypocrites, then, I'm sorry to say it, but you really need get out from under your rock. They've been hypocrites since the Dark Ages. :lol:
Click to expand...
No, not surprised. It's obvious that the same driving force is behind ID and AO. I knew it on some level, I had just never made the connection or realized the dichotomy of the logic. The initial premises are complete opposites which make the conclusions mutually exclusive.

Strange people, strange ways.

i^2
 
arg-fallbackName="BIGgourami"/>
it IS dangerous... it teaching a braod-sweeping general distain for science and scientists

"oh we don't need to listen to those loony scientists!"



next thing you know a new disease pops up - "oh we don't need to listen to those loony scientists!"
a meteor is aimed at earth - "oh we don't need to listen to those loony scientists!"
massive volcanos, hurricanes, earthquake, etc - "oh we don't need to listen to those loony scientists!"
 
arg-fallbackName="Ciraric"/>
BIGgourami said:
it IS dangerous... it teaching a braod-sweeping general distain for science and scientists

"oh we don't need to listen to those loony scientists!"
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I was trying to get at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top