posted
Irami, I think you are misunderstanding what "moderate" means. I know you read OSC's most recent column; there's a lot in there I don't like, in terms of the usual jabs at the enemies of All that is Good, but there's some good stuff in there about who moderates are. About how moderates aren't people without opinions, or even people without strong opinions. About how moderates aren't people who fall in the middle on every cause, but rather people who share some views with one side and other views with the other side. People who oppose abortion but favor gay marriage, or who favor environmental protection but oppose gun control (gee, I seem to have chosen the converses to all of Uncle Orson's examples . . . )
I suggest you reread it, since you seem to have missed that part.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm suddenly very glad my church does not officially endorse any candidate from any party.
Neither does Obama's. The United Church of Christ gives a large dose of autonomy to the local church. If you look at the award's name, it's the in the minister's own name. It's like me giving you (BlackBlade) the Bokonon Sez Ur Teh Awesome Award.
What Trinity does with their money, does not require any action by the congregation I grew up in here in Massachusetts. And even if the minister is doing this, depending on how church funds are involved, I could easily see many parishioners not agreeing, but remaining friends with their pastor.
The UCC is not like the megachurches, or the Baptists, or the Mormons, in fundamental ways of governance and responsibilities.
quote:About how moderates aren't people who fall in the middle on every cause, but rather people who share some views with one side and other views with the other side.
I think he is wrong. There may be a word for people who share some views with one side and other views with the other side, but I don't think it's moderate. It's as if people think they can just take five issues, assign them all numbers between 1-10, with ten equal to Ann Coulter and 0 equal to a Hippie, divide by five to get an average numbers, and if your mean is between 3-7, you are a moderate. I think some people think of it that way, but it seems to me that they are wrong.
posted
I do not understand why these latest nonsensical tactics of Senator Clinton's have not been ridiculed. She is blasting Senator Obama for making speeches and about how "words are cheap". And how is she doing this? What is she doing while she is making this criticism. She is...you guessed it, folks...making speeches! And using...words!
With all the experience she has, you wonder what she thinks presidents do? They convey ideas using words, inspire people by using words, negotiate by using words, give orders with words.
What kind of "work" is she talking about? Clearing brush?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think those people are moderates insofar as they cannot be summed up with labels like liberal, conservative, democrat, or republican. I'm not sure there really are moderates of the kind you describe . . . people with no real opinions on anything.
What would you call the people OSC calls moderates?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would you call the people OSC calls moderates?
Opinionated Americans.
Then it's a semantic issue. The people you take issue with are not the people Card, Obama, or I call moderates.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm giddy with the idea of my president being the type of guy that reads a book about genocide, calls the author, then has a 4 hour conversation with her about her ideas.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ideally, when we discuss social or political issues, arguing from the same set of ideas (i.e. knowing what each is talking about) is key to avoid simply arguing at the other person instead of with them, and so, I guess I should make something clear. I see a clear divide between extremism as an abstract concept and those terms that define political discourse. In much the same way, I see a divide between Pro-Choice and Pro-life arguments, in that Pro-Life advocates seem to argue a moral stance while Pro-Choice advocates seem (not all the time mind you) to argue a legal stance, and to me, it's no surprise that both sides are divided the way they are. Of course, there are many more issues than my over-simplification here in the abortion debate, but most of the time, I see these guys arguing at each other and not with each other. To be clear, a moderate can be a conservative, a moderate can be a liberal, but the reason that I asked that question at the beginning of my last post was to draw a distinction between two distinct sets of political discourse. Extremists do seem like they are angry at the world, and though thats clearly not all of them, and though I clearly cannot provide a philosophically sound definition of an extremist (its hard to define a chair, let alone something as complicated as "extremist"), what I do know is that their seem to be characteristics common to many of the extremists I see.
Moderates are those who do not share those characteristics, and thus, it isn't about creating a political scale nor is it about moderates who are cowards and unwilling to take sides. As I said above, a moderate, in my view, can be a conservative or a liberal or a pro-life advocate or a pro-choice advocate, but each of these legitimate positions have been hijacked by the angry extremist who shouts the loudest and demands either compliance with her view or destruction from a righteous moral indignity. I consider myself a moderate, and yet, I have positions on the Iraq war, on abortion, on the death penalty, and other important issues (against, for, against--in case that matters). Moderation means that we do not hate those on the other side, it means that we recognize that others will disagree, and more importantly, it means that victory is not about defeating the other side and allowing ourselves to be divided simply because others hold a differing view, and in that sense, moderation is the ability of the human being to be tolerant, open to new ideas, and knowledgable of the fact that though we may disagree, you are my brother or sister.
I use abortion as an example here because I think it is perfect to illustrate my point, the debate about abortion in America is a debate that is heated and sometimes violent, it divides us and separates us, and yet, it can never be solved if most of the time the debaters are arguing over each other and preaching to their own followers who already agree with the debater herself. It can never be solved if the true motivation of the advocate is to defeat and divide, and it can never be solved if we don't understand that there are going to be disagreements, that people are opinionated, and that we should never hate or dislike someone because of an opinion.
At heart, hopelessly naive to be sure, I am a humanist. LOL, I believe in humanity, I have faith that if given the knowledge, power, and opportunity to do the right thing, that humanity itself can rise above the petty and hateful, and that in the end, we are not doomed to the failed existence so many would have us believe. And I think it starts with hope. The notions that we are more united than divided, that together we can change the world, and that the impossible was only so until someone came along and did it, are not platitudes or cliches. They are the basis for a better America and world, and though it is through rational discourse and human endeavor that I believe it can be done, I think it begins with hope. Hope can drive us to be better and if we know that there is a a new mountain climb, if we understand each other, and if we can rationalize the arguments that so divide, we can come to an understanding and a point of toleration that will allow us to accomplish the great and impossible.
I think part of the problem with the discourse in America is that the two sides have left everyone in the middle feeling like they either have to pick a side or bow out. If you vote for a Democrat or a Republican, you have to grab hold onto EVERY one of their issues, but few people in the center align like that, they pick and choose and make some compromises before arriving at what they consider to be the best balance of their choices, but no one on either of the wings treats them like that. Both sides pander to the extreme ends of their base, and every one in the middle feels caught in the cross fire.
It's like what Icarus was saying a few posts up about people who have issues that cross over. Neither of the major parties line up exactly with my feelings. I don't like abortion, though I make room for some exceptions, I think there should be civil unions, but it's unfair to force religious institutions to share any sort of religious inspired marriage with a group of people they find antithetical to their beliefs. I think renewable energy and global warming are the great struggle of our time, not the war on terror, which is probably the biggest blunder we've made in 50 years. And yet I still think America needs to be a force for change in the world. I think social security is broke, and should largely be done away with. That leaves me firmly in no camp. And the fire breathing on both sides makes me want to choose neither.
Enter Barack Obama. He's not a firebreather, he's not a demagouge, he's not out to push people away, it's his very goal and campaign pledge to bring them in. He never lumps "the other side" in as a group, he talks about Americans as a whole. It's not even the core of his message that I love (though I do) so much as his new vocabulary. He's bringing us back to perhaps a place where both sides can disagree all they want, but still get a beer together at the end of the day. Congress especially needs to get that era of good feeling and brotherhood back, and I think Obama exudes that kind of feeling. It's language more than anything that has burned bridges and pushed us all so far apart. Bush I think embodies this the best of any major politician (Ann Coulter easily the best if we include anyone in the media). It's language of divisiveness, language that is intentionally provocative and is meant to serve one purpose: Creating a "them" and an "us" and forcing you to choose between one and the other by painting every issue as black and white.
Forget red and blue, it's all about black and white, but the next president needs to make the whole map grey, and I think he already realizes that it IS grey, it's just a matter of consistantly using the right language to show respect for the other side of the argument, of any given argument, and that'll get us back on track.
That and Congressional term limits, but that's another debate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
February 16th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 43%, Other 1%, Undecided 7%
I've been reading stories about how Clinton was making a comeback in Wisconsin, I guess this is what they meant. It could go either way, it's a virtual tie with this recent polling data. With voting starting in just over 24 hours, and Clinton set to leave the state to continue her campaigning in Texas and Ohio, Obama stands to make gains from last minute bumps, as he'll be there throughout the voting. But we'll see. I say 50/50 split, with either of them actually officially winning.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems as though being a moderate carries the sense of being measured in tone, but not necessarily in substance. That still seems like a relatively small virtue, and I think that to an unbecoming degree, it elevates the importance of style over substance. But I fully admit that it be the case that a moderate tone is a pre-condition for any substantive, procedurally democratic policy work to be done.
I'm one of those guys who thinks that there is a difference between being nice and being good, and I don't like confusing one for the other. With all of this rush to be moderate(read: polite), and substitute that for compassion and thought, I don't want people to take too much of an unearned moral comfort from being nice. It's easy. It's lazy.
Edit: Politeness may be a pre-condition, but it's not the real thing. Moderate, as polite, is not a political position.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'm giddy with the idea of my president being the type of guy that reads a book about genocide, calls the author, then has a 4 hour conversation with her about her ideas.
Me too. I'm also giddy with the idea of someone like Samantha Power helping to set policy in that president's administration.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
It says "Click on the sponsor logo: to read this article and all of Salon for free". But there's no sponsor logo. Annoying.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm suddenly very glad my church does not officially endorse any candidate from any party.
Neither does Obama's. The United Church of Christ gives a large dose of autonomy to the local church. If you look at the award's name, it's the in the minister's own name. It's like me giving you (BlackBlade) the Bokonon Sez Ur Teh Awesome Award.
What Trinity does with their money, does not require any action by the congregation I grew up in here in Massachusetts. And even if the minister is doing this, depending on how church funds are involved, I could easily see many parishioners not agreeing, but remaining friends with their pastor.
The UCC is not like the megachurches, or the Baptists, or the Mormons, in fundamental ways of governance and responsibilities.
-Bok
I see how you thought I was saying Obama's church is different in this regard. I was merely noting that I am glad my church does not try to marry politics and religion when it comes to political candidates.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deleted cuz I looked at page22 for a link to Wiki's delegate count, walked away for a while, then answered an old comment assuming it was on the newest page.
posted
I think that moderation goes deeper than "politeness". I think that it is a deeper understanding that, even if you don't agree with someone else, that their positions have value. Not demonizing the "opposition" is deeper than merely being polite.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was merely noting that I am glad my church does not try to marry politics and religion when it comes to political candidates.
It's a matter of the degrees with the LDS Church. Instead of candidates, the Church comes out for and against propositions, and instead of official proclamations, authorities are allowed to shill and fundraise during services, I'm thinking specifically about Prop. 22 in California. Like most religions, your church picks and chooses. There is nothing wrong with it, I just don't want people thinking that churches are non-political. Heck, Jesus wasn't even non-political.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any church that tries to "marry politics and religion when it comes to political candidates" is in serious danger of losing its tax exempt status for contributions. Issues are fine, but no candidate endorsements.
All of the "such and such a candidate is a real Christian, so vote for him" statments come from para-church religious organizations or associations of religious people, not churches.
In the same way a group of LDS members could have had a "Mormons for Romney" group -- the LDS church couldn't have sponsored one, but individual members could. Same with "Baptists for Huckabee" or "UCCers for Obama."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm suddenly very glad my church does not officially endorse any candidate from any party.
Neither does Obama's. The United Church of Christ gives a large dose of autonomy to the local church. If you look at the award's name, it's the in the minister's own name. It's like me giving you (BlackBlade) the Bokonon Sez Ur Teh Awesome Award.
What Trinity does with their money, does not require any action by the congregation I grew up in here in Massachusetts. And even if the minister is doing this, depending on how church funds are involved, I could easily see many parishioners not agreeing, but remaining friends with their pastor.
The UCC is not like the megachurches, or the Baptists, or the Mormons, in fundamental ways of governance and responsibilities.
-Bok
I see how you thought I was saying Obama's church is different in this regard. I was merely noting that I am glad my church does not try to marry politics and religion when it comes to political candidates.
Ah, I see. Carry on then! --
Lyrhawn,
quote: but it's unfair to force religious institutions to share any sort of religious inspired marriage with a group of people they find antithetical to their beliefs.
Are there actually Liberals who want to do this, systematically? There may be individuals who want to be married in a church that won't let them, but I've never heard of anyone advocating this stance.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Instead of candidates, the Church comes out for and against propositions, and instead of official proclamations, authorities are allowed to shill and fundraise during services
Prop 22 was a very rare occurrence for the LDS church. The church has come out against gay marriage in a way similar to when it came out against the ERA. They also came out (on a state level) against a proposition to allow paramutual gambling in Utah. These are the only three political issues in the last fifty years that I recall the church having taken anything approaching a political stance on.
Authorities are most definitely NOT allowed to shill or fundraise during services. If it happened and was reported the leaders would have been severely reprimanded. Signature gathering on church grounds is prohibited, political use of buildings or property has been against church policy for at least 50 years. Members are not allowed to use church-provided membership directories for political or business purposes. The church takes very seriously it's political neutrality.
<edit>To the point where my dad, who was Bishop of our local ward, was very careful about his involvement in my mom's campaign for state senate, specifically because he didn't want any of his actions to be viewed as any sort of endorsement by the church.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
If OSC is serious in his article, he could start by dropping the phrase "Leftaliban" from his lexicon. Assuming goodwill on the part of those whom you oppose, and assuming that the majority of them are not extremists either, even if you're not convinced it's true, seems like a prerequisite for working together.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for that link. Very interesting, although she (somewhat unsurprisingly) skirted around the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
He's not. he's been demonizing people in his political columns since he started writing them, and he knows enough about how language works that it has to be a conscious choice. OSC LIKES polarized political discourse... except when people on the left do it.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that it is a deeper understanding that, even if you don't agree with someone else, that their positions have value.
This is not always the case. Sometimes another person's position has no value at all.
In many ways I am a 'moderate', and I understand the usefulness of being so. But sometimes, one side is just wrong. In such a case, saying that both sides have value would be dishonest.
Obviously this is not true when dealing purely with matters of opinion. But I often see arguments about facts morph into arguments about opinion, which is when I disagree with the 'extreme' moderates.
(Can there be extreme moderates? haha)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prop 22 was a very rare occurrence for the LDS church. The church has come out against gay marriage in a way similar to when it came out against the ERA. They also came out (on a state level) against a proposition to allow paramutual gambling in Utah. These are the only three political issues in the last fifty years that I recall the church having taken anything approaching a political stance on.
It's still picking and choosing. We still have gays, women, and people who'd rather feed public coffers from gambling as opposed to taxes, and everyday, those people rightfully shake their fist at the LDS Church in a political way. It doesn't matter how frequently it happens. It happened before, and there is nothing to stop it from happening again, in the same way. Truthfully, I'm not even against it. I just don't like people lying about it.
quote:This is not always the case. Sometimes another person's position has no value at all.
I don't agree with this. Their position has value because they imbue it with value. They are people, and if you respect them as people, you have to respect that they have a view. It could be wrong, but should not be dismissed outright. Democracy is not about elections or polls or 51 percent, it's about taking people seriously, everyone seriously. Hopefully, that ethic also cultivates a culture of people taking themselves seriously.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that it is a deeper understanding that, even if you don't agree with someone else, that their positions have value.
This is not always the case. Sometimes another person's position has no value at all.
True. But I think that this is pretty rare. I think that most people, given a chance and the proper environment, have some reason for thinking what they do. They may not be good reasons or reasons we agree with but they are reasons. If we demonize them or dismiss their reasons, they are going to demonize us and dismiss us as well and we will become more entrenched and "frozen" and extreme.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Javert: True. But I think that this is pretty rare. I think that most people, given a chance and the proper environment, have some reason for thinking what they do. They may not be good reasons or reasons we agree with but they are reasons. If we demonize them or dismiss their reasons, they are going to demonize us and dismiss us as well and we will become more entrenched and "frozen" and extreme.
I agree that demonizing should not be done. Dismissing? Sometimes.
And I just want to be clear, a person can have very good reasons for their position with it still being wrong.
For example: My child was mauled by a dog. My position is that all dogs should be destroyed. (I'm purposefully using an extreme example. I doubt anyone holds that specific position. But then again, I could be wrong.)
Do I have a good reason for holding that position? Certainly. But that doesn't mean my position is correct, or right.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't think he meant to lie, he probably just forgot. The church does give a speech every year, though I don't recall one for the primaries, reminding us that it is our civic duty to vote and reminding us that the church doesn't endorse parties or candidates, and only speaks out on issues that have direct bearing on what the church would consider a moral issue.
The church thereby preserves its influence by not tossing it around continually. However, I am sure that as long as marriage definition is in play, the church will be taking a stance on it.
There was a strong peace movement at BYU around 2003, which was deflated a bit by the President of the Church expressing his support for the War on Terror, but when he did so, he specified he was doing it as an individual and not as the leader of the Church. I don't think it would have been necessary except that one of the more energetic apostles (Elder Nelson) had spoken on peace the prior conference and gotten some people agitated.
Anyway, I read an article this morning about why Obama would win, and my favorite answer was "The Force is with Obama." Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm talking about issues where there are definite answers, not just opinions.
Science standards in public schools, for example.
There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools. There's far more to deciding what to teach in public school science classes than issues that have definite answers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It says "Click on the sponsor logo: to read this article and all of Salon for free". But there's no sponsor logo. Annoying.
Lisa, are you using Firefox with AdBlocker or AdBlocker Plus?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for that link. Very interesting, although she (somewhat unsurprisingly) skirted around the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Yeah, I wasn't surprised to see her skirt around that, but I was disappointed by it. I've googled a bit to see if she's gone into any detail on her position on the issue, but so far all I've found are a lot of pro-Israel blog posts that refer to her as "Israel hating" and that sort of thing. I haven't been able to find anything she's actually written about the conflict.
I'll have to see if my local library has any of her work next time I'm there.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm talking about issues where there are definite answers, not just opinions.
Science standards in public schools, for example.
There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools. There's far more to deciding what to teach in public school science classes than issues that have definite answers.
posted
How can you disagree? We don't teach every accepted scientific finding in high school. We somehow choose which ones to teach.
Could you describe the objective criteria you would use to allocate the time spent on, say, quantum physics as opposed to ecology?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: How can you disagree? We don't teach every accepted scientific finding in high school. We somehow choose which ones to teach.
Could you describe the objective criteria you would use to allocate the time spent on, say, quantum physics as opposed to ecology?
That's not what I meant. My point is only that there is no room for opinion when dealing with teaching science in science classes. Science, as opposed to bad science, pseudo-science or religion masquerading as science.
There is criteria to determine what is and what is not science. Opinion is not an issue.
If something is science, it can be included in science class. The actual specifics, quantum physics vs. ecology for example, are opinion based.
I didn't mean to suggest that the entirety of the issue was non-opinion based. But certain sub-issues within it are.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The places where there are political disagreements over what to teach in a high school science curriculum have a large tendency to be, on one side, people who want to teach science, and on the other side, people who don't. There is a definite right and wrong answer to that question.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for that link. Very interesting, although she (somewhat unsurprisingly) skirted around the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Okay, I found an interview in which she talks about it a bit. From the fifth page of the interview (formatting and speaker labeling added by me for clarity):
quote:Interviewer: Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine - Israel problem, let's say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Samantha Power: I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem. I actually think in the Palestine - Israel situation, there's an abundance of information. What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
quote:The places where there are political disagreements over what to teach in a high school science curriculum have a large tendency to be, on one side, people who want to teach science, and on the other side, people who don't. There is a definite right and wrong answer to that question.
A "large tendency" is not even close to showing that questions about standards in public schools have "definite answers." There are serious disputes amongst curriculum committees that have nothing to do with science v. non-science.
For example, California is considering a law mandating teaching climate change in public schools. There are disputes about whether the science is definitive enough that might meet Javert's criteria. But there are significant issues concerning this bill that have nothing to do with that - many at the heart of the problem of science standards in public schools.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A "large tendency" is not even close to showing that questions about standards in public schools have "definite answers." There are serious disputes amongst curriculum committees that have nothing to do with science v. non-science."
Again, political disagreements. The ones that matter outside curriculum meetings. And about the only two that matter to voters are
ID vs evolution. Definite scientific answer.
And the one you bring up. Human caused global climate change vs not. And, again, despite what yousay, there's a definite scientific answer to that one. Humans are causing climate to change. The question is "How much?" At least to scientists. The question in politics is "Are we?"
Those are the only two I can think of that a voter might have in mind, thus, political disagreement. And on both of those, there is a correct scientific answer. Which does NOT answer the question of whether they should be taught in school. But if its "pick one," then there is a correct and an incorrect answer.
There is also a correct scientific answer to whether or not evolution is an important biological theory that students should know, if they are going to be taught any biology at all.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Carry on then!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
