[Aric2000]

WRONG, the current curriculum is Secularly based, or should be. There should be no mention of god, PERIOD!!

Sorry, but science is NOT atheistic, or have you NOT been listening? Even the pope has a HUGE scientific staff, and they are all priests.

Come on exmarine, you are making science out to be something it is not, atheistic, just as G3K does, but he's a fanatic, whereas I do not believe you fit into that mold, or we would not be talking so civily.

Science has NO opinion about god, that is the bottom line, and if it used god anywhere it would be religion, NOT science.

Science is secular, it has no opinion. Just as the schools should be.

again, if you wish your children to know creationism, or ID or any other religious based beliefs, teach them yourself. It's just that easy.

[f.Christian]

God / / creation is science . . . don't confuse the two - - - evolution is rubbish // lies // impossibilities ! ! !

[f.Christian]

The Theory of Evolution is bunk // rubbish - - - NO design // inteligence . . ID and Creation are SCIENCE ! ! !

[Tribune7]

There should be no mention of god, PERIOD!!

I don't want to go over old ground but would you have a problem with the teaching of the Declaration of Independence?

How about Martin Luther King's speeches or Lincoln's Second Inaugural? Would you require qualifiers implying that these men were well-meaning but misguided by ignorance, or maybe that when they said "God" or "Creator" or "Jesus" they were just trying to cynically inspire their sheep-like followers?

God is. It is perfectly right, to treat this as an axiom.

[exmarine]

I simply do not see a secular based curriculum (whatever that means). I see a cirriculum undergirded by naturalistic assumptions as I have well demonstrated. It can't be denied. It's a well-known fact. You can take cap-lock off now. All the caps in the world will not that that. Tell me, under secularism, how would you teach the origins of the universe?