On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM, PT <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > But we're not talking about origins.
> > 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. > > I guess I missed that because it said: "One of the panelists reviewing the biology textbooks" I was focusing on this statement: Religious conservatives serving on state textbook review panels have criticized several proposed high school biology textbooks for not including arguments against Charles Darwins theory of evolution. 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. > > I see it as just one nutter in a very large group, and since she's a nutritionist that should make her a scientist. But it's a non-story. "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. > > This: Religious conservatives serving on state textbook review panels have criticized several proposed high school biology textbooks for not including arguments against Charles Darwins theory of 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 my point. This nonsense from the articles title implies All Texas Conservatives on the board want creationism taught. In reality it was one out of 28 members. > 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 > <http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm> > I was arguing that anything from http://www.rightwingwatch.org is a joke and should be laughed at. You seem to have fallen victim to another of Larry's pranks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:367001 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
