On 9/11/2013 2:11 PM, Sam wrote: > Exactly. So why is "an argument against evolution" considered an argument > about origins?
Because creationism is an origin myth. > Who want's to teach an unrelated myth-based, alternative explanation? I > thought we were talking about arguments against evolution. Apparently the good people who want creationism forced into biology books to be taught as an alternative "science theory" to evolution. >From the article: I understand the National Academy of Sciences strong support of the theory of evolution, said Texas A&M University nutritionist Karen Beathard, one of the biology textbook reviewers. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator, parent and grandparent, I feel very firmly that creation science based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is up for adoption. It does not explicitly state that creationism be taught as an alternative to evolution, but it is strongly implied, and, come on, we know that implication is exactly what is being attempted. Either way, someone who doesn't understand science should not be pushing for anything to be included in science books. "At the same time, this is a theory." - Doesn't understand science. "... creation science based on biblical principles ..." - Doesn't understand science. I don't know why we are talking about arguments against evolution. Scientifically based arguments against it should absolutely be included. It would be extremely negligent for them to not be included. However, none have been presented for inclusion. The article is about introducing mythology into a science textbook to be taught as a basis for sound scientific theory. That is the opposite of science. It is also stupid. The people that advocate it are willfully ignorant. That was the discussion at the beginning of this thread and the one I was continuing. You seemed to be taking some kind of position of support, or not, I can never tell, but you were arguing "against" the people arguing against the inclusions mentioned in the article. If you were supporting the argument for inclusion of Creationism, then my comments remain aimed at you. If not, then you have gone off on another tangent and what you are arguing no longer has any relevance to the original post, and you may feel free to reserve your responses for someone who is arguing more in line with whatever your current topi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:366998 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
