rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/18/84)
See parent article for Paul DuBois turning "1st grade education in today's world" into "educated man"--and then defending it...but then: Way back when, someone had said... > % > > The people of the Bible would be somewhere around a 1st grade > % > > education in todays world, So how do you tell a 1st grader about > ... > So let's go back to my example. Compare Moses to a "1st grade > education in today's world". How does he stack up? What do they > learn in 1st grade? Reading, writing, simple arithmetic, etc. > Moses could read and write. From what he wrote, it's clear he > understood arithmetic. Etc. So Paul (>) is now arguing AGAINST the old article by pointing out how Moses has various first-grade skills...which is nicely in favor of the original statement. I feel like I'm in hyperspace; I see people taking opposite sides and agreeing; then I see people taking the same side and arguing. > Anyway, yes, of course my brain consists of unadulterated mush. I > thought we all knew that. What's surprising is that you'd bother > to point out the obvious. This is sort of a lame device for trying to "win" an argument--but if that's what Paul wants to say about himself, I guess we should take it. > And I'm quite used to having my beliefs threatened, actually. I think > we all realize here on the net that not everyone is going to agree > with us all the time. Go ahead and criticize. Fine. Just don't > expect me to sit still after you've done it. Well, ("open letter" to Paul) I was trying to point out where you weren't paying attention to what someone else was saying. You still aren't. If it's attacking your beliefs to ask you not to intentionally misinterpret the other side in a discussion, you've indeed got a strange belief system, and you probably should be accustomed to having it "threatened" (though "challenged" is a better term). -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/18/84)
>See parent article for Paul DuBois turning "1st grade education in today's >world" into "educated man"--and then defending it...but then: > >Way back when, someone had said... >> % > > The people of the Bible would be somewhere around a 1st grade >> % > > education in todays world, So how do you tell a 1st grader about >> ... >> So let's go back to my example. Compare Moses to a "1st grade >> education in today's world". How does he stack up? What do they >> learn in 1st grade? Reading, writing, simple arithmetic, etc. >> Moses could read and write. From what he wrote, it's clear he >> understood arithmetic. Etc. > >So Paul (>) is now arguing AGAINST the old article by pointing out how >Moses has various first-grade skills...which is nicely in favor of the >original statement. I feel like I'm in hyperspace; I see people taking >opposite sides and agreeing; then I see people taking the same side and >arguing. I'm not arguing against my old article. I'm attempting to accommodate your demands. You didn't like it when I 'turned "1st grade education in today's world" into "educated man"', so I then compared Moses to '1st grade education in today's world'. And you don't like that either. C'mon, Dick! Jump back! >Well, ("open letter" to Paul) I was trying to point out where you weren't >paying attention to what someone else was saying. You still aren't. If You are? >it's attacking your beliefs to ask you not to intentionally misinterpret >the other side in a discussion, you've indeed got a strange belief system, >and you probably should be accustomed to having it "threatened" (though >"challenged" is a better term). Actually, Dick, "threatened" was the word YOU used. Go back and read your own articles. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Psalm 119:35
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/07/84)
> [Richard Carnes] > This leads to the larger question of the causes of the resurgence of > creationism in the United States, a question that has no simple answer. I > believe it has a great deal to do with the need of an economically and > politically oppressed sector of American society to defend its autonomy and > integrity by asserting control over the education of its children and over > its way of life in general. This is only the beginning of a long discussion, > one which I would very much like to see taking place in net.origins. The comment regarding education of children is noteworthy. It would appear that education of the children of creationists is perceived as having been taken out of their control. Now, you may be right. In fact, I think that, to a certain extent, you *are* right. My question, in reply, would be: do you feel that creationists have a right to reassert, to the extent that they have lost it, their control over what they wish their children to be taught? If not, who decides? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/02/84)
> [Martin Taylor] > I conclude that Q-Bick (what an appropriate pseudonym) has neither > interest nor appreciation of elementary physics. It is this kind > of argument that leads me to answer Paul Dubois that indeed, creationists > should NOT be allowed to determine how their children are schooled. > The children should not be punished by a denial of their potential > heritage, simply because their immediate family glories > in their ignorance. This is certainly an interesting idea. Because I am alleged to be ignorant, Mr. Taylor proposes that I shall no longer have a say in my children's education, and that instead he should be the arbiter of what is taught to them. Accepting for purposes of this posting the equivalence of creationism and religion (though I don't usually), it's always interesting to observe how the religious are told to keeps their hands off of everybody else's mind, but the non-religious, notwithstanding the continual noise about tolerance, etc., delegate to themselves the authority to final rule on issues of paramount importance to the religious. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
mark@elsie.UUCP (Mark J. Miller) (12/03/84)
> > [Martin Taylor] > > I conclude that Q-Bick (what an appropriate pseudonym) has neither > > interest nor appreciation of elementary physics. It is this kind > > of argument that leads me to answer Paul Dubois that indeed, creationists > > should NOT be allowed to determine how their children are schooled. > > The children should not be punished by a denial of their potential > > heritage, simply because their immediate family glories > > in their ignorance. > > This is certainly an interesting idea. Because I am alleged > to be ignorant, Mr. Taylor proposes that I shall no longer have > a say in my children's education, and that instead he should > be the arbiter of what is taught to them. > > Accepting for purposes of this posting the equivalence of creationism > and religion (though I don't usually), it's always interesting to > observe how the religious are told to keeps their hands off of > everybody else's mind, but the non-religious, notwithstanding the > continual noise about tolerance, etc., delegate to themselves the > authority to final rule on issues of paramount importance to the > religious. > -- > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois An excellent example of Creationist hypocrisy. They see nothing wrong with cramming their view of religion down my childs throat (sorry, Paul, Creationism is solely based on religion), but they start sounding like liberals when somebody advocates doing it to them. I also note, with some little amusement, how they equate non-belief in Creationism with being non-religious. Nothing like the old straw man, is there? -- Mark J. Miller NIH/NCI/DCE/LEC UUCP: decvax!harpo!seismo!elsie!mark Phone: (301) 496-5688
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/16/84)
>>> [Martin Taylor] >>> I conclude that Q-Bick (what an appropriate pseudonym) has neither >>> interest nor appreciation of elementary physics. It is this kind >>> of argument that leads me to answer Paul Dubois that indeed, creationists >>> should NOT be allowed to determine how their children are schooled. >>> The children should not be punished by a denial of their potential >>> heritage, simply because their immediate family glories >>> in their ignorance. >> >> This is certainly an interesting idea. Because I am alleged >> to be ignorant, Mr. Taylor proposes that I shall no longer have >> a say in my children's education, and that instead he should >> be the arbiter of what is taught to them. >> >> Accepting for purposes of this posting the equivalence of creationism >> and religion (though I don't usually), it's always interesting to >> observe how the religious are told to keeps their hands off of >> everybody else's mind, but the non-religious, notwithstanding the >> continual noise about tolerance, etc., delegate to themselves the >> authority to final rule on issues of paramount importance to the >> religious. >> -- >> Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois > > An excellent example of Creationist hypocrisy. They see nothing wrong with > cramming their view of religion down my childs throat (sorry, Paul, > Creationism is solely based on religion), but they start sounding like > liberals when somebody advocates doing it to them. I also note, with some > little amusement, how they equate non-belief in Creationism with being > non-religious. Nothing like the old straw man, is there? > Mark J. Miller I will begin by agreeing that my terminology could have been more wisely chosen (since there are non-creationists who are religious), and I will restrict myself to "creationists" and "non-creationists" here. But no straw man (at least not intentionally): My statements were not entirely without merit. Certainly they were not completely false. I note as well, with little amusement, Mark's admission that what is being forced down creationist throats is religion. But perhaps that is not what he meant to say. In any event, I will not agree to a charge of hypocrisy. I sounded like a "liberal" in an attempt to demonstrate to non-creationists what it is like to be on the receiving end of their own style of rhetoric. I notice that Mark did not seem to like it too well! Another point was this: Non-creationists continually discuss freedom of education and so forth, particularly with respect to not having creationists dictate what their children learn in a public school. No doubt a good deal of this discussion is sincere, but to the creationist what it generally amounts to is keeping the schools free *from* creationism. I wish to point out the contradiction in holding that position at the same time that one declares for oneself the right to decide what creationists' children shall learn in a *public* school. (This was advocated by Martin Taylor, above. I should mention, however, that I have received from Martin, via email, some comments to the effect that this statement was more extreme than his general views. I wish to acknowledge such comments here, and would be remiss if I did not.) In any case, the charge of cramming religion rings false to my ears. This sounds, to me, more like a trumped-up party line intended to impart negative connation while stultifying thought. Creationists do not, by and large, say that teaching of evolution should be "outlawed" in public schools. It may be said that *some* do (there are always extremists, such as the example given by Lew Mammel, which was promptly denounced by Ray Miller) but this is a minority viewpoint within creationist circles. What creationists definitely *do* say is that it is poor public policy to teach the monolithic doctrine "evolution is a fact" or (less rigidly) "evolution is the best theory", meaning it's so far ahead of creationism that we only need to mention the latter by way of saying it's so outdated that no one in their right mind believes *that* anymore. Well, maybe it is. But surely you do not expect that the result of an attempt to silence my views on public policy will be sympathy on my part for your own? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33