This question, which was repeated several times for clarity, was specifically about "Intelligent Design" (ID) or "Creation Science" in the SCIENCE CURRICULUM of the public schools.
There is a present movement among creationists to portray "ID" as a science, which it most definitely is not.
Several candidates had the right answer, that it does not belong in our SCIENCE curriculum at all.
It is not an alternative science, it is an argument based on faith, and belongs in the home and in church.
If it belongs in public school at all, it should be part of comparative religion, sociology or political science.
You say Ms. Swanson is no creationist. I'm not sure how you know that. The consensus at my table was that she was trying to legitimize creationism as a valid science, but knew that she could not say so directly.
Bob Treumann Como
At 03:55 PM 5/1/2005, Al wrote:
As a result one of the finest answers of the day went unheard by almost all when she spoke to a
toughie; something like: Is there any place for ID (intelligent design) in the city's school's curriculum. I am
pretty sure Ms. Swanson is no creationist but she did say we should at least be teaching something about
creationism and thru that about ID. She did not get booed but that may have been because no one heard.
She also did not get cheered. Three or four clapped. Of course she is right and we liberals should understand
that here us a perfect chance to be liberal on a tough issue and not take any risk.
------------------------------------------------- JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY: http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ ------------------------------------------------- POST MESSAGES HERE: [email protected]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
