Too much moderation on these boards?

A primary purpose which no longer holds prime position amongst the posters. You can't stop evolution it seems and the site is what it has evolved into. And the basis for the supposed bias towards creos has outlived its use (if it ever existed at all). It should be naturally deselected

The same way we know you aren't. Everything you say leads one to suppose that you aren't. Not proof, but hey! who has proof of anything around here.

Dream on Jar. And remember next time you propagate the idea, that it is a dream of your own manufacture and one you choose to impose on others (ie: it was never asked for). If anyone is fooled by it then they deserve to be - its nefarious objective must be patently obvious to all but the most dense (although I doubt anyones intellect could be so low in wattage so as to take you seriously in this)Anyway, I've requested that your illusionary project be suspended in my case and trust I will be exposed to the full wrath of your demand for evidence in due course - not that I will tolerate your cherry picking of my own arguments for attention.I trust I shan't be hearing anymore of this tripe again.

I read somewhere that you are an English teacher. Talk about a chance to influence the hearts and minds. Do you like your job?

You don't think a persons worldview might influence the way in which the (presumably) proscribed books are read? Is there any flexibility in what you prescribe as reading material and which material do you promote in that case?Say the title of an essay you give as homeworkEdited by iano, : No reason given.

This is what I meant about your own world view (or the world view of Norton) influencing hearts and minds. Assuming you cannot assign every essay in the list, you could pick the first essay title on the list. Or the last. Your worldviews choice I imagine.What age is comp 1Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Say you had a particular worldview which you knew to be the right one (as opposed to one which you held to but weren't sure of). Would you expose your students to the total array of worldviews or would you seek to influence them to your worldview in so far as that was open for you to do?Edited by iano, : question answered

I understand the sentiment - but it doesn't answer the question asked.

A worldview that hold all worldviews to be possibilities is a worldview - is it not?

But such a situation is possible - it is possible (even probable)that only one worldview is correct. As is that you know it to be the case. Say you knew it with the same certainty that the world is round, but your students hadn't that information. Should (or would) you teach that cubical, flat, diamond-shaped Earths are equally possible options? Or would you point them to the evidence that convinced you?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Which worldviews do you exclude as possibilities? Say your top 3Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The question didn't suppose something being taught which is not adhered to with certainty. It would be unfair to influence your students on something you weren't sure of yourself. I'm glad your type exists on the plantet. The world would be worse off without you. Spare a beggar a dime? Apart from not answering a not-unreasonably-posed question then I suppose nothing at all.

As you should supposing that English Teacher is some absolute entity which usurps all else. A person finds something which they come to understand usurps all else and they are meant to subvert this to a "job title". But, per definition, the job title is subserviant to what they have found out. Then what?

Logic, reason, observations of the world around us. These can be added to the argument. I don't think one should arbitarily limit evidence to be of a certain class in order for the evidence to be evidence. That imposes ones worldview on things- arbitarily I agree. And if someone wants to say "Godidit" then that is as good an evidence as any. The reason not to default to such responses would be so that discussion would be promoted - it serves any view to find areas of common evidential ground in order that both points of view may be better transmitted. There is no need for a two-tier system. The person who inappropriately resorts to Godidit when faced with a reasoned argument won't find many people to debate with. The problem will solve itself.No one is forced to debate anyone and all can make up their own minds as to the worthyness of the evidence presented in the context it is presented. That is sufficient control. So the two-tier system is imposed on the creationist in order that the other side won't be bored. This is even worse than I thought.