> More to the point, biology class is for science, not bronze-age
> superstitions. The seperation of church and state is an important
> freedom and well worth fighting to preserve. Still, it is not the
> only (or even the main) issue in excluding Creation Science[sic] from
> biology or other curricula.
Since science, by definition, requires evidence to support whatever
assertions are made, creation 'science', *anybody's* creation 'science',
is, by definition, *not* science. This ought to be blindingly obvious.
So the real issue is, not whether or not creation 'science' belongs in a
science classroom, or should be taught as a science, since it doesn't and
it isn't, but why this is such a hot issue, and what the people who are
advocating it *really* want. Teaching various creation beliefs as part of
a course that looks at the origins of scientific thought is one thing,
(but that's really a history course, not a science course), but teaching
them as though they are the same as science is just plain wrong. Why?
Because they are not supported by any evidence. (A religious text
detailing the history of a people, or anything else, and supposedly
inspired by that religion's major deity does not constitute evidence.)
So basically, I think we are all pretty much in agreement here, we just
have different ways of expressing it.
Crwydryn (the Wanderer)