On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM, PT <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > We're arguing to different paragraphs. I'm discussing this: "Religious conservatives serving on state textbook review panels have criticized several proposed high school biology textbooks for not including arguments against Charles Darwinâs theory of evolution."
And you're discussing: "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." We both agree. 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. > > ét 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. > It's one woman. She's nuts. I get it. It's not the entire conservative panel. > "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. > Twenty eight people on the biology panel and one suggests adding creationism. Is that what you got from that article? . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:367003 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
