But to be a young earther one must reject huge amounts of physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology in ways I cannot accept as within the bounds. And so I think the narrow analogy is apt.
But to return to the thread, the facts of the case really matter and would affect my assessment of the situation. I do not think one needs to teach all about Islam and Confucianism and Hinduism and Buddhism and Judaism, or even much about them or their cultures to teach something useful about European history. But I think any version of European history - great person, intellectual, political, social, economic, cultural, religious, what-have-you - can be enriched by some added perspectives.
Steve
On Monday, December 8, 2003, at 04:21 PM, Eugene Volokh wrote:
Two thoughts:
(1) I was under the impression that most modern supporters of teaching either intelligent design or creationism more broadly specifically *distanced* themselves from "young earthers," which is to say people who believe that the earth is only several thousand years old. I had assumed that the post specifically mentioned young earthers rather than creationists for that very reason. Am I mistaken?
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
"A word must become a friend or you will not understand it. Perhaps you do well to be cool and detached when you are seeking information, but I remind you of the wife who complained, 'When I ask John if he loves me, he thinks I am asking for information.' "
Sir Edward Coke, Case of Swans, 7 Rep. 15, 17 (1592)
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
