Replies

You are giving sufficient evidence for banning Lamarckianism from Biology class. If it's history, then put it in history. If you need a special "history of science" course, then put it there.

It's extremely common to review the history of a science or of a theory before studying it. What's the problem with that?

Lamarck was, to say the least, speculating in an area where our current knowledge is so much superior that it's misleading to suggest that his ideas (or observations about ideas) were ever part of science.

Of course they were. They failed experimental tests, but were definitely taken seriously.

Give it up. The guy's a fraud.

Do you mean Lamarck? He was wrong, but certanily not fraudulent.

Or are you claiming FreedomProtector's claims about his school were fraudulent?

You didn't pass the test.

My approach to even mentioning Lamarck was exactly the same ordinarily taken to reject even mentioning ID or Creationism, or that somebody somewhere might have a question or two about Evolution itself.

The biggest argument the Evos have is that of making science class "germane". That means keep the soft-sciences out of the biology classroom.

So, either that argument is good in all cases or it's not a good argument.

So, which is it ~ you're with us, or you're not with us?