I thought that stuff only happened in Kansas.

Federal Way...

One of those "uncities."

Can't expect much out of a local municipality that can't even manage it's own development & growth.

Anyplace where you find several megachurches with over 100,000 sheep on each one of their rolls, you'll run into that sort of obtuse cretinism. I honestly expected to hear of this first coming from one of those inbred backwaters East of the mountains or Lewis County, but they would never show it to begin with.

I actually kind of agree with the district on this one. I haven't seen the film, so I will keep my comments focused. Everyone has an agenda, whether they admit it or not. The problem with films like the one above, is that often a teacher will try to surpress anyone from taking another point of view. Years ago when I was in high school, I had a rabid Reagan-worship-loving teacher that would constantly quote him about how far behind the Russians we were in defense. To back up her "proof" she would use briefings that the pentagon would use when trying to get additional funding from Congress. In her eyes, unless we tripled the defense spending tomorrow, we would all be speaking Russian tomorrow. Even though I am pretty conservative, I tried to point out that there maybe another side to the picture and that the data we were getting might be scewed. There is no way the U.S would ever disclose everything we have and at the same time there is no way for anyone to verify any of the data. From that day the teacher did everything in her power to flunk me. She would routinely give out homework worth 10 points. If I would forget to dot one "i" I would lose 10%. The girl next to me would show me her homework where she would write, I don't know and don't care on the paper and would get full credit. The teacher gave me an excused abscene around Christmas, then told the class she was excited becuase with the 6 tardies I had added to the absence she could now flunk me. I remember the Principal laughing when I told him what was going on. He signed a letter telling her she couldn't do it, then told me "She used to be president of the Teachers union and I can't do anything about her. Just be glad you will be gone next year, unfortunately I won't"
In the end, while I have no problem with them seeing the film, I do agree there other side should have to be shown, just like I feel the same should be done with every arguement. It is very easy for students to be intimidated and harrassed. Everyone, even in high school, should be allowed to present opposition to an agenda. So often in education, it seems they are trying to breed cookie cutter kids that all will go to college and sit in a cubicle, never questioning, never daring to step outside the box, never having the tools or belief to challenge and change things. If they succeed, we can kiss America as we know it good-bye. My personal belief is question everything, believe that anything can be done better, and to try my hardest not to accept the status quo.

Whether or not we agree with Al Gore the school district should not restrict the flow of reasonable information. What would be wrong with our young people growing up with the fundamental knowledge that what we do impacts the environment and each other.

RVW

Maybe they should teach the opposing view that the earth is flat too?

We should never forget there was a time that saying the world wasn't flat would have gotten you killed. One side of any arguement is never good for anyone.

There really is only one side of an argument when dealing with facts. The world is round. To argue otherwise is nuts. Global warming is happening. Glaciers are melting. The cause can be debated but the vast majority of the worlds scientists have determined we are contributing to it. To me it's obscene to teach children an "other view" counter to scientific consensus. It's like requiring fisheries students to be taught that endangered fish are really just a long term natural cycle which will all work itself out without our help over time.

If the argument for banning the film is that it teaches a theory, then teaching gravitational theory should be banned as well. Teaching that climate change is not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is just as absurd as teaching that gravitational pull is not caused by masses, in my book.

I really don't know enough about the science to argue the this effectively from a sceintific side, but if I remember right, everyone was freaking out about global cooling in the early 70's. Point is, while it does seem to be fairly solid science, there still are people out there with valid opposing views. What harm is there in letting them talk. If, the opposing views have so little to stand on, it makes the other side even stronger. Debating an issue almost always results in clarification and strengthening of arguements. The refusal of debate usually is a result of fear or narrow minds. I know I have learned much by listening to people who I adversly disagree with than with people who I agree with. Being a conservative in a fundamentalist church, it I have fought all my life with people who refuse to listen to any veiw other than there own and fear anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. The older I get, the more I see that extremes act the same way, and that most things in life are formed in a circle. Kind of like love and hate are very close, radicals on both sides of the fence have more in common then anyone wants to ever admit. Both rule by fear and limiting knowledge.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/299387_gored.html

I'm sure there are idiots out there who sincerely believe that 2+2 = 5. Maybe all schooling should come with a caveat that it depends on how you think. 4 or 5 would be a correct answer from now on. If people want their kids to be taught a minority view point they should do home schooling to the detriment of their childs future. Don't force it on all. Yes as more and more is known then facts and opinions may change over time and at that time hopefully we will be teaching the current accepted science as we should be doing now. There's no room or time to teach other unaccepted viewpoints.

Creationism
Evolution
Spawned from aliens
where does the nonsense end?

Ironic timing by Doonesbury:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070114

Science is not science when it starts with a premisis and then works to a conclusion. A good example of this is what I argued a short time back in the evolution thread. Just recently a UW scientist came out with the theory that if life had existed on Mars, the last probe would have killed any existing life present. This is because the method to extract any life was based on the premises that any life would be similar to life on earth, which, given the conditions, it couldn't have. Simply put, as the scientist said, the search for life was to earth-based in its concept. My thought has always been that if a person believes in evolution then one must believe life occurred through random occurences under the existing conditions. Why then, considering how different the conditions are on mars or other planets, do we suppose life would take a similar form? By assuming that life would evolve or exist in the same or even similar forms, giving the extemely different conditions, would give more credence to a designer then it would to a random process, ie. evolution. Science does the best it can with the knowledge it has, but must except the fact that there is much unknown. They must approach each problem with an open mind and be accepting of the endless possibilities, something that, in my opinion, is not done. Ask most scientists if God exists, they will laugh at you. But ask any of them to prove he doesn't exist. They may point to a lack of evidence, or the problems with existing religions or creationism, but in the end they can't prove he doesn't. An adequet answer would be, I don't beleive because I have seen no evidence to draw me to that conclusion, is it possible yes, but in my opinion not probable. They may even think you are foolish for your belief. All ok and scientifically valid. But to dismiss the unknown, is to prove your prejudices.
In the theory of Global Warming, as in all science, there are probabilities, but there are also possibilities. Nothing is harmed in discussing both, with appropriate weight given to each.

"starts with a premisis and then works to a conclusion"

The extreme religious right mantra.

Actually the scientist you mention was stating that if there were life in the Mars samples brought back to Earth we probably killed it by using water in testing.

You can use your same logic to teach that the bogey man might exist also. Or ghosts under your bed at night. Tooth fairy? Easter Bunny? Santa Claus? Or whatever you wish to make up but it still won't be so. This logic is exactly why we need to strongly teach our next generation to not think like their misguided parents. At some point people need to use their minds. If you can prove that the majority of scientists are wrong in their conclusions then you may have something. Until then that's what we have to go with and teaching anything else is simply "starts with a premisis and then works to a conclusion"

Stlhd,
Why would we ever need to prove the majority of sceintists wrong. That's ridiculous, since they can't prove they are right. What is needed, is scientific evidence that either questions the validity of their conclusions, or a valid alternative philosophy. Absent that, you are right, we might as well be arguing for the easter bunny. All sceince would be unusable, since at one time the majority of scientists believed in creationism, and that has never been proven to be wrong. What has happened is that a ever growing number of scientists presented valid arguements agianst creationism and hard evidence for other theories. Over time, it appears as if the prevailing theory of Darwin evolution may be losing steam. At any time science may present a better and more precise theory. If we required existing theories to be disproven, nothing would ever change. In the case of the Federal Way School District, they were simply requiring that a alternative theory be presented. While you may not think that one exists, that is only your opinion. Even if the other side only pokes holes at the prevailing Global Warming Theory, if these are done with science, I have no problem with that. Most of you heard the sound bites of the idiot ranting about religion and how it applied to the Global Warming theory. A closer look shows that more than one parent objected, and that, even if the guy on the news arguing was being an idiot, the fact is that other sides do exist. If you want, I will try to dig up some opposing veiws and post them. You won't believe them. I may not beleive them. But they still may have validity in opening up conversations regarding alternative theories and holes in the present theory. Only time will truely show who is right. It is prudent to make efforts to stop Global Warming, but in the end it could be proven that all our efforts were either in vain or not needed.

Could might maybe.

There are probably a thousand alternative theories but you are wrong in claiming they have validity or should be taught in school. Maybe as an aid in a debate class but not as valid claims. Are you saying every alternative should be taught no matter how utterly ridiculous? If not then who chooses which are valid and which are not? Parents? A majority of parents? In this case it seems a minority of parents. No, it should be scientists and overwhelmingly they have chosen a single theory that global warming exists and we are the cause. They back this up via observations, temp measurements, core samples, etc. What you espouse is called "junk science" and we shouldn't be filling our childrens heads with junk.
If they'd only bring back prayer in schools all the worlds problems would go away. In fact we wouldn't need to teach anything other than praying your way out of a mess. Some out there would call that a valid argument. I call them crack pots.