[atlaw]

Hey Dataman. The real world has been hectic of late, so I haven't been able to freep as much as I'd like.

I'm serious, though. I am supposing that the "threat" to the "evolution-only" advocates that is being posited here is either Creation Science or Intelligent Design. Sticking to Creation Science, I really am curious -- what would its curriculum consist of? And yes, I am woefully ignorant of the opposition's position.

[whattajoke]

good question... one which has no answer. Since creation myths are a dime a dozen. geeze, even the bible has a couple competing ones!

[Dataman]

And yes, I am woefully ignorant of the opposition's position.

And so are many others who feel free to criticize that of which they are ignorant. Why? What gives some of you the built-in superiority to pontificate the truth about matters of which you are ignorant?

[vaudine]

I believe its curriculum would be the same as it is today, except it would not discount the creation theory, but would be inclusive. Intelligent Design and Creationism are about the same thing, with more intellectual posits and nuances in the Intelligent Design discourse. There would still be evolutionists, creationists, and some who combine the two.

There are many scientists that refute some of the Darwinian/evolution "facts" that have been in scientific schoolbooks for decades. Also, I don't believe that discussing ALL theories of how we got here is anything but tolerant,free education. The "fact" is that all the evolution "facts" just don't add up, and the Evolution Only crowd doesn't want that pointed out.

Creationists are about a lot more than "God did it, I don't have to discuss it, period. How about a little less PC and a lot more tolerance?

Vaudine