tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post3734557797602532561..comments2024-01-14T17:27:30.511-05:00Comments on Law, Legislation, and Lunacy: How Libertarians Are DifferentDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14364155797420903461noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-70292912917050258652012-05-07T23:16:55.949-04:002012-05-07T23:16:55.949-04:00The problem is science is not just another opinion...The problem is science is not just another opinion as your post seems to indicate. Science is about a burden of proof. It's not a marketplace of ideas, if you make an assertion you have to have evidence. How popular or pretty an idea is has no relevance on if it's true or not. Saying that teaching evolution in science class and not teaching creationism because it is not true is an extreme position is ridiculous. It's like say teaching fractions in math is extreme and we should let alternate ideas about fractions be allowed as well.<br /><br />Creationism is nonsense. It's been disproved time and time again yet people still stick with this bad idea despite the evidence against it. The problem is if teachers start teaching critical thinking skills as to the evolution vs creationism debate you're going to get complaints from churches about how you're attacking religion. Creationism IS religion and not only is teaching it against the first amendment of the Constitution, attacking it would be seen as part of the "war on faith" or whatever catchphrase is being used to justify religious privilege these days. And I notice that you don't allow for other creation myths to be taught as well. Why just one version of creationism when there are dozens to choose from? After all they're equally valid.<br /><br />The fundamental part of creationism is that it makes assertions without confirmation then claims its immune from criticism. That's not part of critical thinking. I guess that's how libertarians are different, they're willing to accept untrue ideas if they're popular.Jasonnoreply@blogger.com