Creationism education bills

[FeelingMN 273]

fuller exposition of my thinking about evolution

 

We have Mensa for that.

 

Good job Nikki!

 

I'm gonna preempt Mensa. Notice he says "And I have no problem with theories about how they may fit into the process of evolution so long as they can be tested experimentally."

 

So he's not against ID per se....as long as ID can test their hypotheses. Though they'll have to do that on their own....no more hijacking other people's work.

 

So....coming full circle....where are the ID experiments? Can you give us some that are actual experiments and not blogposts. TIA.

[DankNuggs 305]

 

Nobody is gonna sway anybody's opinion here. I have no interest in arguing against God. I've said many times before....and will continue to say Religion is a good thing. It provides meaning and guidance to people's lives. But I think it does run into problems when it tries to answer EVERYTHING about the Universe. Jerry made a good point, science is asymptotic in its pursuit of Reality. It'll never answer ALL the questions....but, it is the best method devised to answer questions of the natural world. While Religion answers questions of a different aspect of reality....our mental realities....spiritual realities. It's one of the things that helps guide us through human existence. But it's a poor construct for delineating how the natural world works.

 

And if Darwinism is the product of ID....we would therefore be the product of ID...which would mean we are programmed on some level and the issue of Free Will presents itself. It reeks of theology. If churches or community groups or whatever want to teach ID. Fine...I'm cool with that. Just don't tell me ID is on par with science. And if you do, bring something significant to the discussion other than made up quotes and sophistry.

Once again, the strength is understandind ID and Science as they relate together... My early science classes about big bang and pangea made no 'guesses' as to what happened before...it simply taught science of plate techtonics and whatnot...

 

Religion was taught on its own time and is the responsibility of the parents, not the school system...

 

those who seek to use science to prove religion doesn't exist are just as dumb as those trying to prove science doesn't exist... both lack critical thinking ability... and THATS what we should be teaching kids in schools, the ability to THINK, not regurgitative facts...

[DankNuggs 305]

So....coming full circle....where are the ID experiments? Can you give us some that are actual experiments and not blogposts. TIA.

You are standing on it.... Unmoved Mover.... Done...next question... Rules of science claim that matter cannot be created or destroyed, yet it exists...

[KSB2424 3,174]

and THATS what we should be teaching kids in schools, the ability to THINK, not regurgitative facts...

I said that like 9 pages ago. The answer you'll get is that ID doesn't fit exactly into the "science" bucket, so therefore it must be dismissed. Nevermind the part about getting students to actually think.

 

Folks get so caught up in trying to be right or wrong they miss the big picture.

[nikki2200 4]

ID does exactly the opposite. It teaches kids that there is an end to the questions that science asks, and that end is "because God made it that way." That is the precise moment when thinking stops.

 

 

Bump

[MedStudent 56]

I said that like 9 pages ago. The answer you'll get is that ID doesn't fit exactly into the "science" bucket, so therefore it must be dismissed. Nevermind the part about getting students to actually think.

 

Folks get so caught up in trying to be right or wrong they miss the big picture.

 

My argument is that creationsim stifles thinking as opposed to promotes it. Its an easy way to explain away something that you are too lazy to think about. (Post 61)

[FeelingMN 273]

Once again, the strength is understandind ID and Science as they relate together... My early science classes about big bang and pangea made no 'guesses' as to what happened before...it simply taught science of plate techtonics and whatnot...

 

Religion was taught on its own time and is the responsibility of the parents, not the school system...

 

those who seek to use science to prove religion doesn't exist are just as dumb as those trying to prove science doesn't exist... both lack critical thinking ability... and THATS what we should be teaching kids in schools, the ability to THINK, not regurgitative facts...

 

Absolutely. Kids should be taught to THINK. Of course.

 

I'm not sure we're best served having immature minds arguing Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. It'll come down to believing in God, or not....since all ID is, as far as I can see, is Evolution with God at the controls. You won't get much constructive debate in such a discussion. But I think it'd be a cool college course.

 

Kids need to be able to think through topics. I absolutely agree with that. I just don't think Science vs. Religion should be such a topic.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Bump

Still flying over your head?

 

It's the juxtapostion of ID versus Big Bang that would create a culture for students to think for themselves. Just look at this thread as an example. What it's not is the idea that science class would turn into vacation bible school like suggested in your bumped quote. Hope.This.Helps.

[drobeski 3,061]

I sure hope all of you righteous twirps who have a problem with the teaching of ID have the same problem with the teaching of global warming .......

 

I have a problem with both....oh and add what sex education has become and the my 2 dads kind of crap falls into the same category of pure bullsh!t that is being forced on kids.

[Frank M 181]

We have Mensa for that.

 

Good job Nikki!

 

I'm gonna preempt Mensa. Notice he says "And I have no problem with theories about how they may fit into the process of evolution so long as they can be tested experimentally."

 

So he's not against ID per se....as long as ID can test their hypotheses. Though they'll have to do that on their own....no more hijacking other people's work.

 

So....coming full circle....where are the ID experiments? Can you give us some that are actual experiments and not blogposts. TIA.

 

I argued for this seven pages ago.

 

Still waiting.

[DankNuggs 305]

My argument is that creationsim stifles thinking as opposed to promotes it. Its an easy way to explain away something that you are too lazy to think about. (Post 61)

I think you are too tightly defining 'creationism'. The mid-west bible belting 'creationism' is a narrow subsection of people similar to say extreme beliefs in other religions...

 

Creationism in my mind acknowledges the role of religion in the creation of the world... having an agenda to teach kids that religion doesn't exist is dangerous...

[MedStudent 56]

I sure hope all of you righteous twirps who have a problem with the teaching of ID have the same problem with the teaching of global warming .......

 

You going to tell us a story about how your neice was tied down and forced to watch a global warming horror movie too?

[drobeski 3,061]

You going to tell us a story about how your neice was tied down and forced to watch a global warming horror movie too?

Not at all, but it doesn't belong in a science class....its as unproven as ID

[DankNuggs 305]

Still flying over your head?

 

ID versus Big Bang

There is no ID VERSUS Big Bang, its all the same thing... ID is the idea that the matter involved in the big bang was created...

[MedStudent 56]

I think you are too tightly defining 'creationism'. The mid-west bible belting 'creationism' is a narrow subsection of people similar to say extreme beliefs in other religions...

 

Creationism in my mind acknowledges the role of religion in the creation of the world... having an agenda to teach kids that religion doesn't exist is dangerous...

 

You are putting words in my mouth. Creationism in the context of this thread is about the creation of man and life. Religions influence on the creation of the world are well documented in history books. i never said to teach kids that religion does not exist. You made quite a leap there.

[parrot 789]

having an agenda to teach kids that religion doesn't exist is dangerous...

 

Lots of schools are out there teaching kids that relgion doesn't exist, are they?

[Frank M 181]

Still flying over your head?

 

It's the juxtapostion of ID versus Big Bang that would create a culture for students to think for themselves. Just look at this thread as an example. What it's not is the idea that science class would turn into vacation bible school like suggested in your bumped quote. Hope.This.Helps.

 

You keep saying this when that is not what anyone is saying. ID has not passed the rigors of scientific testing and as such, does not belong in a science class. It is the antithesis of critical thinking because it teaches that some things are too complex to explain, so we won't try. Not to mention that any speculation about involvement of a deity in anything is not SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, FAITH, SPIRITUALITY, whatever you want to call it.

 

Not surprisingly, the simplicity of the argument escapes you.

[FeelingMN 273]

Lots of schools are out there teaching kids that relgion doesn't exist, are they?

 

I thought the same thing. I guess teaching science is teaching that religion doesn't exist.

[Frank M 181]

You are putting words in my mouth. Creationism in the context of this thread is about the creation of man and life. Religions influence on the creation of the world are well documented in history books. i never said to teach kids that religion does not exist. You made quite a leap there.

 

They all want it in science classes. I don't get it. As if discussing creationism in it's proper place, a religion or philosophy class, somehow deprives kids of something or denies it's existence. No, it must be in a science class as an alternative to evolution, even though it is not science. It has to be there, otherwise it will not be recognized as an idea that exists.

[nikki2200 4]

Well since the whole scientific aspect of this debate seems to have been quashed, it's turned into a philosophical one. I think the point from the beginning was that philosophy or religious beliefs should not be guised as science. MensaMind went way out of his way to try to prove that ID was in fact science. Since we can pretty much put that concept to bed now how about a different idea.

 

How about we promote having a religion class in jr. high schools or high schools? And the purpose of this class would be to objectively explore all the different world's religions, learn about their origins, and compare and contrast them. Talk about teaching kids to think! That could open the floor for some lively and interesting debate and some out of the box thinking. It would probably help promote tolerance as well. I would stand behind this 100%. And science stays in the science lab where it belongs where kids are performing experiments and proving hypotheses through research and experimentation.

 

Why do I have a feeling, however, that the same promoters of ID would have a big problem with this? Just a hunch I have. That perhaps they don't want their kids learning about and exploring other religions, the same way they don't want science to contradict their own personal beliefs. So is the issue at hand here really that you want kids to learn how to think? Or you want them to think the way you want them to think? Just a thought.

[Mike Honcho 5,439]

Well since the whole scientific aspect of this debate seems to have been quashed, it's turned into a philosophical one. I think the point from the beginning was that philosophy or religious beliefs should not be guised as science. MensaMind went way out of his way to try to prove that ID was in fact science. Since we can pretty much put that concept to bed now how about a different idea.

 

How about we promote having a religion class in jr. high schools or high schools? And the purpose of this class would be to objectively explore all the different world's religions, learn about their origins, and compare and contrast them. Talk about teaching kids to think! That could open the floor for some lively and interesting debate and some out of the box thinking. It would probably help promote tolerance as well. I would stand behind this 100%. And science stays in the science lab where it belongs where kids are performing experiments and proving hypotheses through research and experimentation.

 

Why do I have a feeling, however, that the same promoters of ID would have a big problem with this? Just a hunch I have. That perhaps they don't want their kids learning about and exploring other religions, the same way they don't want science to contradict their own personal beliefs. So is the issue at hand here really that you want kids to learn how to think? Or you want them to think the way you want them to think? Just a thought.

 

:banana:Cmon Nikki, let's not get crazy here, we don't wanna talk about all those fake religions...just the real one...you know the one with the guy with a beard...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SANTA CLAUS!!!

[drobeski 3,061]

Well since the whole scientific aspect of this debate seems to have been quashed, it's turned into a philosophical one. I think the point from the beginning was that philosophy or religious beliefs should not be guised as science. MensaMind went way out of his way to try to prove that ID was in fact science. Since we can pretty much put that concept to bed now how about a different idea.

 

How about we promote having a religion class in jr. high schools or high schools? And the purpose of this class would be to objectively explore all the different world's religions, learn about their origins, and compare and contrast them. Talk about teaching kids to think! That could open the floor for some lively and interesting debate and some out of the box thinking. It would probably help promote tolerance as well. I would stand behind this 100%. And science stays in the science lab where it belongs where kids are performing experiments and proving hypotheses through research and experimentation.

 

Why do I have a feeling, however, that the same promoters of ID would have a big problem with this? Just a hunch I have. That perhaps they don't want their kids learning about and exploring other religions, the same way they don't want science to contradict their own personal beliefs. So is the issue at hand here really that you want kids to learn how to think? Or you want them to think the way you want them to think? Just a thought.

That's a pretty good idea, but at least be honest about the religions....none of the bullsh!t propaganda we hear all the time about how a certain religion is peaceful ....when the reality of it is the complete opposite. They should also stress how women are treated in the various religions ....

[MedStudent 56]

Well since the whole scientific aspect of this debate seems to have been quashed, it's turned into a philosophical one. I think the point from the beginning was that philosophy or religious beliefs should not be guised as science. MensaMind went way out of his way to try to prove that ID was in fact science. Since we can pretty much put that concept to bed now how about a different idea.

 

How about we promote having a religion class in jr. high schools or high schools? And the purpose of this class would be to objectively explore all the different world's religions, learn about their origins, and compare and contrast them. Talk about teaching kids to think! That could open the floor for some lively and interesting debate and some out of the box thinking. It would probably help promote tolerance as well. I would stand behind this 100%. And science stays in the science lab where it belongs where kids are performing experiments and proving hypotheses through research and experimentation.

 

Why do I have a feeling, however, that the same promoters of ID would have a big problem with this? Just a hunch I have. That perhaps they don't want their kids learning about and exploring other religions, the same way they don't want science to contradict their own personal beliefs. So is the issue at hand here really that you want kids to learn how to think? Or you want them to think the way you want them to think? Just a thought.

 

After reading your idea, I came to the same conclusion. This would not go over well in the bible belt. Imagine if kids could decide which religion they want to follow after learning about them? The Horror.

[jerryskids 7,091]

My argument is that creationsim stifles thinking as opposed to promotes it. Its an easy way to explain away something that you are too lazy to think about. (Post 61)

 

My argument is that we are 11 pages and counting into a thread on the topic precisely because creationism was defended, and I would guess that everyone learned at least a little something useful in the discussion.

[OldMaid 2,135]

Why won't this thread die?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIE ALREADY! DIE!

[FeelingMN 273]

Why won't this thread die?

 

DIE ALREADY! DIE!

 

Even if it dies, it'll come back to life a few days later.

[drobeski 3,061]

Even if it dies, it'll come back to life a few days later.

God won't let it

[penultimatestraw 473]

Professor Shapiro e-mailed me. I would be happy to forward the e-mail to anyone who wants to see it. Since I am not in favor of putting words in anyone's mouths, I will just copy and paste what he said.

 

 

 

Also I really can't believe he responded. I was kinda doing it as a joke.

Sweet baby Jesus, this is beautiful! Awesome Job Nikki

 

What will IMM do next? Change the subject? Argue semantics? Propose (again) that Dr. Shapiro is hiding his true feelings? Or maybe he is being held hostage by some radical "lefty"/secular/neo-Darwinist/atheist who is forcing his hand?

 

I'm just glad there are no insults in Dr. Shapiro's email, lest he incur the wrath of IMM, too

[IMMensaMind 462]

Sweet baby Jesus, this is beautiful! Awesome Job Nikki

 

What will IMM do next? Change the subject? Argue semantics? Propose (again) that Dr. Shapiro is hiding his true feelings? Or maybe he is being held hostage by some radical "lefty"/secular/neo-Darwinist/atheist who is forcing his hand?

 

I'm just glad there are no insults in Dr. Shapiro's email, lest he incur the wrath of IMM, too

 

what are you talking about? He didn't say anything in that letter any different than I've attributed to him. I've agreed with FeelingMN's assessment of Shapiro, in that he's not a proponent of ID, and I posted Perry Marshall's link where that is already explained.

 

That does not mean that his research and its implications cannot fuel a debate about it; it just means that this isn't evidence of anything more than I've said that it is: a refutation of Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolution, and a strong circumstantial case for a Designer.

 

He's just not in a position to say so.

 

I've also said that he's not antagonistic to the idea. He said as he is supposed to: as a scientist, supernatural causes are excluded. What's the revelation here? He's not antagonistic to ID either, as I've said. He is choosing to remain above the fray IMO, as I've already said.

 

I'm curious just how you square accusing me of insulting, when you're the one who insulted me, and repeatedly, incidentally. I do not believe that I have insulted you whatsoever to this point.

[GettnHuge 2]

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

wat

[nikki2200 4]

I posted Perry Marshall's link where that is already explained.

 

Perry Marshall is a computer programmer who writes blogs on the interwebs. Can we please stop bringing him up? It's embarrassing.

 

And I have no problem with theories about how they may fit into the process of evolution so long as they can be tested experimentally.

 

 

Once anyone in the entire world tests through scientific experimentation the concept of ID and proves there is any scientific validity to it, I am sure no one on this thread would have an issue intelligently discussing the concept as a scientific theory. Maybe you can get busy at it. Until then, let's leave this "debate" where it belongs and that is outside the friggin science lab.

 

STAY DOWN Mensa. For the love of Entity. STAY DOWN!

[penultimatestraw 473]

what are you talking about? He didn't say anything in that letter any different than I've attributed to him. I've agreed with FeelingMN's assessment of Shapiro, in that he's not a proponent of ID, and I posted Perry Marshall's link where that is already explained.

 

Argue semantics - check.

 

That does not mean that his research and its implications cannot fuel a debate about it; it just means that this isn't evidence of anything more than I've said that it is: a refutation of Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolution, and a strong circumstantial case for a Designer.

 

Your only remotely legitimate point, albeit one fueled by religious beliefs which cannot be proven/disproven scientifically.

 

He's just not in a position to say so.

 

Insist he cannot reveal his true feelings - check.

 

I've also said that he's not antagonistic to the idea. He said as he is supposed to: as a scientist, supernatural causes are excluded. What's the revelation here? He's not antagonistic to ID either, as I've said. He is choosing to remain above the fray IMO, as I've already said.

 

Suggest he is being influenced by some outside force - check.

 

I'm curious just how you square accusing me of insulting, when you're the one who insulted me, and repeatedly, incidentally. I do not believe that I have insulted you whatsoever to this point.

 

Change the subject - check.

 

Wish the NCAA tourney was as predictable.

[Me_2006 14]

what are you talking about? He didn't say anything in that letter any different than I've attributed to him. I've agreed with FeelingMN's assessment of Shapiro, in that he's not a proponent of ID, and I posted Perry Marshall's link where that is already explained.

 

That does not mean that his research and its implications cannot fuel a debate about it; it just means that this isn't evidence of anything more than I've said that it is: a refutation of Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolution, and a strong circumstantial case for a Designer.

 

He's just not in a position to say so.

 

I've also said that he's not antagonistic to the idea. He said as he is supposed to: as a scientist, supernatural causes are excluded. What's the revelation here? He's not antagonistic to ID either, as I've said. He is choosing to remain above the fray IMO, as I've already said.

 

I'm curious just how you square accusing me of insulting, when you're the one who insulted me, and repeatedly, incidentally. I do not believe that I have insulted you whatsoever to this point.

 

S&MensaMind, everyone sees it but you. Even those who agree with you have taken to arguing a different point. You're wrong. It happens to everyone. Your self-image as a genius will be much better off by admitting it and moving on than to continue attempting to preserve some shred of your initial argument using semantics. For the love of God (who created us all), just stop.

 

You just can't thump your chest about a link to research from this brilliant guy (who was cool enough to email Nikki back about it, WTF is up with that?!) and refer back to it and go on and on about it and then have the guy who did the research personally say it doesn't say or prove what you're attempting to say it says and proves. That's game over man. If you're at a book club meeting and a debate breaks out about a passage, and the author himself shows up and tells you what it means, that's the end of the debate.

 

You can't interpret his work better than he can. You aren't the only intelligent person here, and acting like everyone but you is just misunderstanding is making everyone embarrassed for you. It's not that you're the only one wise enough to see it that way, or that people don't like you and are twisting your words or insulting you or whatever. You're just wrong on this one, dude. It happens to all of us a half dozen times a day (more if you're a man in a relationship). There's nothing lesser about it. The pathetic part is refusing to admit it.

[Mookz 1,375]

BTW.... MensaMind.... you are good peeps.

 

 

Thanks!

 

OOPS - I didn't know you had a receiver. Okay - if that's the case, I understand what happened with your TV before I think.

 

Now I need to know what receiver you have. lol

 

I miss the old days.

[Gepetto 1,454]

what are you talking about? He didn't say anything in that letter any different than I've attributed to him. I've agreed with FeelingMN's assessment of Shapiro, in that he's not a proponent of ID, and I posted Perry Marshall's link where that is already explained.

 

That does not mean that his research and its implications cannot fuel a debate about it; it just means that this isn't evidence of anything more than I've said that it is: a refutation of Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolution, and a strong circumstantial case for a Designer.

 

He's just not in a position to say so.

 

I've also said that he's not antagonistic to the idea. He said as he is supposed to: as a scientist, supernatural causes are excluded. What's the revelation here? He's not antagonistic to ID either, as I've said. He is choosing to remain above the fray IMO, as I've already said.

 

I'm curious just how you square accusing me of insulting, when you're the one who insulted me, and repeatedly, incidentally. I do not believe that I have insulted you whatsoever to this point.

 

I agree. His first statement is he is a scientist. He is just being smart to stick to the science being the position he is in. The problem with this whole discussion is science is limited to science and people have been programmed since childhood in schools about the scientific method and fact. News for everyone, science is based on scientific studies. Each study finds a percentage of something leaning one way to say for instance answer a question proposed (yes or no) and several answers may be yes but not so many may be no. So a conclusion is reached by a person. Then other studies are done and someone reaches a conclusion. Other studies are done and previous studies are incorporated into each scientific paper and more conclusions are drawn. Basically, each study produces a conclusion, but the problem is all of the studies and conclusions taken together do not tell the whole story of everything, it is very very fragmented so we need to be careful about coming up with some grand explanation for everything. We are taking baby steps and our knowledge of the universe and of life is really like the size of speck of dust compared to the size of the solar system multiplied by several trillion fold.

[FeelingMN 273]

That does not mean that his research and its implications cannot fuel a debate about it; it just means that this isn't evidence of anything more than I've said that it is: a refutation of Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolution, and a strong circumstantial case for a Designer.

 

What is a Designer? If it isn't God, then it's an extension of God...something made by God. Shapiro said he accepts natural causes, not Supernatural causes advanced by many ID proponents. Why shouldn't we lump you in with many of the ID proponents? You've been arguing for an outside agent throughout this thread. How is that not Supernatural?

 

He's just not in a position to say so.

 

How do you know? That's purely speculative. You make it sound like you and he actually share the same thoughts on this research, but circumstances dictate he keep his opinions to himself until his research yields more results. Again, you're projecting. The truth is, you really don't know why he does or doesn't say things. Quit making attributions for his intentions. Doing so only lends credence to the notion that you're incapable of engaging in a honest, intellectual debate.

 

I've also said that he's not antagonistic to the idea. He said as he is supposed to: as a scientist, supernatural causes are excluded. What's the revelation here? He's not antagonistic to ID either, as I've said. He is choosing to remain above the fray IMO, as I've already said.

 

To what idea? He sounded pretty antagonistic to the Supernatural causes proposed by many ID proponents. You say that you are different than many ID folks....but you haven't explained how....or at least, you haven't explained this distinction well enough. But when you say stuff like this:

 

Here's the facts: before this debate, I had very strong beliefs that our environment is designed by an Intelligence - an Entity (many call it God). Before this debate, many strongly reviled that notion.

 

This information doesn't weaken my position at all. I do not believe that anyone looking at this information can intellectually honestly declare: "see! It has nothing to do with a God!", particularly when those people who voraciously supported the notion of a Secular Evolutionary Process held the belief that Evolutionary advancement was Random, and this information - this Scientific Data - stands directly in the path of such a claim!

 

I really don't see a distinction. What you've said here is loaded with supernatural causes, which would mean Shapiro would automatically exclude you from the discussion.

 

Come up with some ID experiments....describe your "Designer" in natural terms....or concede that you really don't know what the fock you're talking about. Quit crying about insults. Quit playing word games. And use that MensaMind of yours to argue your point.

[SUXBNME 1,596]

2:29 in explains everything in life

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf_IIbT8HGk&feature=feedlik

[Yer mom 2]

Now, I'm not into religion at all, and I think Buddhism is bullsh*t as well, but not all religions obviously are equally stoopid. I have to hand it to those guys for having a clean, honest religion. It makes me think that of all the world's major religions, these Buddhists must be closer to the truth than anybody else because they are willing to discard the bullsh*t when confronted with new data rather cling to the prescribed doctrine and cover their ears.

 

 

Oh, and fock off, but only a little bit though

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm curious if the antagonistic lefty in this room will even have the stones to answer this question:

 

Are you in favor of what SETI does (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence)? How so?

I think I've been lumped with the antagonist lefties (in a non-insulting fashion, of course) so here goes:

 

Don't know too much about the specifics of SETI, but I think there is a greater chance of alien life (possibly sentient) than there is of a divine creator. This is based on probability of a suitable environment with the building blocks of life in non-Earth locales. I think it is a fascinating search, but probably too costly, particularly in our current economy. So I like the concept, but we don't have the $ (government funds) - private researchers can do as they please.

 

I sure hope all of you righteous twirps who have a problem with the teaching of ID have the same problem with the teaching of global warming .......

 

Probably a righteous twirp, too:

 

To add more kindling to the flame war, I think it is OK to teach climate change in schools. The bulk of reputable scientists still support it, and global temperatures are rising on average over the long term. The anthropogenic aspect of it is a little more controversial, and might be better left to college level courses.