Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote:

> > What I would prefer to see is people using language to say what they really
> > mean, something like this "If we hold the theory of evolution to be true, which
> > it is likely to be given the philosphical viewpoint or axiom that assumes there
> > is no outside agent then it is likely that the process of evolution evolved the
> > animals, both their bodies and their habits ..."
>
> Umm... keep in mind the target audience for the active essay that sparked this
> thread.  Don't you think that this wording might be a bit much for a sixth grade
> student?
>
> <snip>
>
>

Being English I do not know what age 6th grade is, I assume it is around about 12.
Even at this age I think it is important to frame science in terms of the
assumptions being made.

At an earlier age it could be argued that we should be teaching exporative rather
than prescriptive science experiences for our students.

Keith

> Joshua

The good news is that in my travels I am beginning to find examples of how Squeak
could be used to explore more positive philosophies. For example a collaborative
story writing project in which the question goes something like this.

"Write a strory in which you the story writer are a character and you interact with
other characters"

Douglas adams used to complain that computers were glorified type writers and did
not help him to doo his job developing characters and story lines. So Squeak the
ideas processor should be able to help!

Do the characters have free will and moral responsibility if you are responsible for
writing the story. What difference does it make if you introduce characters in the
story that write for themselves and have genuine free will? (i.e. other
collaborative story writers whose characters they control)

thanks

Keith