Jim wrote:
> Although, the reflexive response of "why this is not good science"
> immediately steers the discussion in a negative direction.
Do you apply that same criteria to discussions of "why sexism is wrong"
or "why is racism not a good practice?" When we come to topics such as
that, no one particularly cares if we take a negative direction with
them--why should the very dishonest and flawed "science" present in
creationist claims be treated any differently?
> Wouldn't it be more fruitful to ask questions such as "why is X
> incapable of being scientifically demonstrated?" or "do we have
> any scientific evidence for such a claim?" (e.g., great glood)
Do you apply that reasoning to presenting the views of bigots or
"pseudo-scientists," or do you present them as examples of obviously
flawed reasoning?
> I agree, but it would also open the door for others to take
> some more whacks at religious folk.
The very insistence of "religious folk" that their personal beliefs be
taught in schools is reason ENOUGH to "take some more whacks" at them.
Creationism is a religious belief, not in even the remotest manner a
scientific theory--the insistence that our students be taught such a
subject and that it be treated with the same deference as a sound and well
researched scientific concept is offensive to ANY teacher who cares about
scientific accuracy in the classroom.
When church Sunday Schools are required by law to teach evolution
impartially I'll listen to arguments that creationism should be treated
differently in the public institutions. Until then, it has no place
outside of the religion that created it's mythos.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
