Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (93585)	1/13/2005 5:31:13 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 108807

Too good to be true guardian.co.uk

To: one_less who wrote (93585)	1/13/2005 5:55:49 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I remember I came home from 2nd grade with the lamest explanation of thunder and told it to my dad. He was a science guy and said "That's the stupidest explanation I've ever heard - a book said that?" and proceeded to tell me exactly why thunder is believed to occur. There actually is some debate about the actual causes of electrification of the atmosphere, but we should not readily turn that into GOD because we aren't sure! That's what Creation "science" aims to do. Some people have the same reaction my Dad had to fundamentalist "Creationism" taught along side with evolution, especially if they have seriously studied geology or biology. We had one guy who was a self-avowed Creationist in my geology program. He dropped out and became a geographer because he found the evidence caused him to doubt his faith (his words to me). I guess putting your head in the sand is one response... I really don't mind Intelligent Design but it belongs in a philosophy of science or religious education course. If we make our schools and texts any dumber to appease people's sensibilities (or pay homage to ignorance) WE ALL LOSE.