so the discussion has run......
>> 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.
. 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.)
what's the conjecture here?
creation science is really just a nice, power term for exclusively
Christian religious education. It should not be taught in a public school
class as that's not their patch. There are a multitude of private church-
run schools who trade in thistype of tutoring.
I suppose that a humanities grad. may argue that the Bible represents a
secondary source or a recording of oral history & traditions,thus may be a
type of evidence but it's not testable, it'snot reproducible & there's no
Again, the cultural domination & perpetuation of a series of beliefs &
moral values is not a science, it's sociology /politics.
or to paraphrase a friend of mine..."oh yeah, Creation science that's in
the same line of thought as phrenology"-> reading the bumps on people's
heads as a guide to their fortune & integrity.
what I think is far more worthwhile is holding this discussion on a
newsgroup moderated by Jimmy Swaggart et al, that's where the real
challeges are/will come from.
that's my $0.02