On 9/11/2013 9:42 AM, Sam wrote: > > Any scientific theory that is not law has arguments against. I don't see a > problem with giving the pros and cons to any good theory. This argument was > presented as trying to add creation science when the article says they just > want the books to be thorough.
Creationism is not science! It does not belong in a science book. I don't see how this is disputable. Come on, Sam. We both know that this isn't about being thorough. This is an attempt to have creationism included in a curriculum to be taught as a viable scientific origin theory. Even if we completely ignore evolution, "creation science" is not science. It does not belong in a science book, nor a science class. At the same time, this is a theory." - She is suggesting that evolution might be wrong while ignoring the scientific definition of theory. Whether evolution is right or wrong, this statement also directly implies that Creationism should be included as viable alternative theory. "This argument was presented as trying to add creation science ..." I don't understand this line. That is exactly what the article says ... and what one of the proponents says: "I feel very firmly that creation science based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is up for adoption." All of the words are there. There is no ambiguity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:367000 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
