I don't oppose teaching design, where design is known, i.e. art or architecture. I don't know anyone who thinks that artisans or architects are designers.
Design nor chance is known in biology, cosmology, etc.
In areas where we don't know, no need for wild guessing in order to promote atheism or theism.
Teach what we know, the processes we know.
Why any reasonable person would be opposed to that is beyond me.
In public schools, there is no need to indoctrinate a child's mind to be atheistic or theistic ideology, to indoctrinate chance or design when it is not known if chance or programming is causal.
I think children need a basis for speculation, and a good basis is the scientific methodology supported with the rigors of testing and logic.
When a child has mastered the basics, then they will be in a position to reason to their
own conclusions, not be a mindless person regurgitating the party line. Children learn the basic math first, they don't proceed to advance mathematical concepts until they have mastered the primary level of understanding.
This flawed concept that the opinions of scientists reflect scientific truths needs to be carefully understood.
The logical uncertainty of chance happenings rather than programmed happenings needs to be communicated in a manner that is not swimming in a sea of bias, but rather in a detached unbiased representation of what we know, and what we don't know.
That you would oppose any of what I suggest, illustrates your bias, and probably a fear underlying that your position is in danger of being exposed as that of a faith based, rather than proof based ideology.
Quote from stu:
You are opposed to the teaching of art or architecture in school , or did you mean intelligent design?
So no teaching of any science intrinsic in or connected to abiogenesis or evolution then.
Just teach kids how not to know stuff.
