[spelling correction, last paragraph] - 'under the skin of the materialists.'

Ok, Folks, I concede - an introduction to clear and questioning thinking, set at a level appropriate to the age/development of the students does sound like a good idea.

I particularly like the way Dan S put the case - "The value in studying philosophy is not just the ability to evaluate arguments, but to open your mind to alternative thinking. Then maybe one might be a little more open to seeing something from the other person’s point of view. This may lead to a little less name calling and a bit more understanding."

I don't dispute that a study of philosophy can be beneficial to improving thought processes, particularly in critical thinking and critical analysis - when it is approached using actual examples and problems, and without going too deeply into the more esoteric, and so often questionable, delvings of the "higher orders" of "old" and "new" schools of thought involved in trying to analyse and define the intricate workings of the universe and of the mind and consciousness from an armchair with a nice cup of tea and a plate of cookies. Some of the schools of thought and related material I scanned in response to Squeers' earlier post on this subject, can best be described as theorising purely for the sake of it. Of course I only scratched the surface, and maybe they did undertake some scientific analysis in coming to their various postulations, but a lot of it looked like pure conjecture, and so much of it was just a lot of ridiculous hypothesizing and counter-hypothesizing.

Squeers, no more nit-picking than science? Hmmmm

Anyhow, it certainly got me thinking.

Ammonite, not real keen on your Voltaire quote - pretty tricky, and I see no solution - would prefer "Money is the root of all evil."

Dan S, The greatest deficiency in Creationism is the sticking to the 6,000 year timeframe.

Ogg, your Noah's Ark livestock could not have included dinosaurs, as they were long since extinct.

AJ Philips "You already answered this in your very next sentence."

No I didn't.
If symmetry posed an evolutionary advantage, then *everything* should be symmetrical.
Why would our bodies retain just a few asymmetrical elements?

"How does your asymmetrical liver hinder your existence?"

It doesn't, but that doesn't explain why our DNA has *not* made two of them, when it's made two of virtually everything else.

"And what law of nature renders that impossible?"

Who said "impossible"?
I just can't understand why a lifeform would discover the benefits of symmetry and use this in *almost* every part of the body, but not all of it.

<<Why did we evolve symmetrical limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, reproductive organs, ears, teeth, but *not* symmetrical intestines, liver, heart?>>

"Because we only need one of each"

Why don't we only need one kidney, one lung?
Your "explanation" is a back-formation.

"so why do you find it so strange that there is no need for that saving of DNA coding when only one organ exists?"

So why not reduce the coding even further and just have one of each organ? That would also require less energy consumption (food scarcity being a threat to survival).

"if our DNA followed a "one-size-fits-all" methodology (as you seem to think nature dictates it must) - requiring all organs to either have a symmetrical mirror image copy on the other side or be centered and symmetrical themselves"

I am commenting on what I observe in nature.
Most creatures are structurally symmetrical, yet for no apparent reason retain some asymmetrical elements.
You have not explained why.
You have given a convenient backformation cop-out of things-are-the-way-they-are-because-they-are-that-way.

Our bodies start as a single cell that splits into an exact duplicate.
Right from the start there is a process of "mirroring", copying, symmetry.
Yet this general process is contradicted for just a *few* body parts.
This seems highly inefficient and inherently contradictory.

If animals were designed by an intelligence no explanation is required.
The designer simply made them that way.
But you claim there is no intelligence, so the discrepancy of asymmetry-within-symmetry needs an explanation.

Saltpetre,

"Theorising purely for the sake of it" is often the catalyst for the advancement of human understanding.

I'm curious (if you are in favour of RE in non-religious institutions) as to why you pose a requirement of scientific analysis for the presentation of philosophy, yet none for the presentation of religious narrative?

Delay much, Shockadelic?

One organ being symmetrical wouldn’t save DNA. The only reason two symmetrical organs save DNA is because one gene is controlling the both of them. What are you expecting? That a symmetrical organ be controlled by half a gene? That’s not the way it works.

But even if you had a point about why evolution didn’t do this or why it didn’t do that, it’s irrelevant, because evolution can only work with what it’s given anyway - like our backwards retinas - it doesn’t consciously decide what ‘s best and then do it.

<<Why don't we only need one kidney, one lung?>>

I’m not sure. The explanation probably varies depending on the organ you’re referring to. For the lungs, I suspect it would have something to do with surface area and/or circulation.

But if you really want to know all this, why don’t you ask experts on those organs? Your local GP might even know. And hey, even if there weren’t answers, there's so much evidence for evolution in the fossil record, in DNA and in the distribution of species that it wouldn’t even matter. Evolution would still remain a fact regardless of what your Joho pamphlets claim.

Oh, and I have never once said that things are the way they are because they are that way. That’s something you’ve made up in typical creationist style.

Poirot,

"Theorising purely for the sake of it" is often the catalyst for the advancement of human understanding."

I agree absolutely, and see a place for some contemplation of philosophical thought in the curriculum - just not the namby-pamby of archaic "schools" of thought.

I'm Not in favour of RE in non-religious institutions (that is Not as a discrete lesson), Nor its provision by "outside" volunteers from this denomination or that, and I'm Not even sure it's appropriate in denominational schools! My preference is, as Ammonite has suggested, that a broad-brush of world religion could be included in an "anthropology" subject - covering human nature and culture - provided by full-time professional teachers employed by the school as a formal component of their job description. I would also prefer if this was part of a standard national schools curriculum across Oz, and the subject should include topics of ethics, morality, honesty, responsibility, behavioural norms and mores, and even basic psychology and basic philosophy, etc - a well-rounded expose of the human condition. The only burning question is whether this subject would be best included in the curriculum as part of the "Humanities" or of the "Sciences". Either way, it would be a substantial, worthwhile, and possibly essential, revision of the schools' curriculum.

AJ, Shockadelic,

"Natural Selection" determines "Life-form Design", through trial and error seeking the simplest and most effective arrangement for survival and replication - operating essentially by random variations (through genetic mutation) and allowing the chips to fall where they may. "Advantageous" variations should normally result in successful replication, so as to become increasingly represented in the subject population - in the absence of cataclysm or exceptional, unforeseen and unpredictable variation in the host environment.

Symmetry (or system duplication) is a random facet, only holding sway where it is advantageous - such as in physical mobility and dexterity, stereoscopic vision, and the likes of system back-up to reduce the impacts of partial systems failure - eg kidneys, lungs.

There is no pure "formula". What works, works, and what succeeds best will generally become the norm.