Replies

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories. Either both should be taught or neither.

First, ID is not a scientific theory, as it is non-falsifiable, and you know this. But I don't even have to get into this, because your suggestion to teach "the two front running scientific theories" is laughable on its face for other reasons:

Evolution has the support of well over 99% of those trained in the relevant biological fields. If ID is truly the second runner-up, it's a distant, distant second. According to your asinine version of "teach the controversy," flat earth theory would be taught in class alongside geosphericism (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), geocentrism would be taught alongside heliocentrism (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), matter indivisibility would be taught alongside atomic theory (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), fluid-caloric-as-heat would be taught alongside thermodynamics, and a million other discarded or far-fringe ideas would get valuable class time -- simply because they rank a vastly distant second to mainstream scientific consensus.

In fact, why not teach the third runner-up? The fourth? If a second runner-up with 0.5% of expert support deserves class time, surely a third-place fringe idea with 0.4% support deserves time. We'll be teaching kids about plasma-vortex-induced crop circles in no time at all, according to your suggestions for curriculum determination.

Exactly.

Science curriculum must teach the dominant theory.

One, the number of school hours devoted to science is limited. There is barely even enough time to give students a solid foundation in mainstream science, to say nothing of spending time on tangets about alternative theories and minority viewpoints.

Two, as most schools are operated as college prep, science curricula prepare students for the subjects as they will be taught at university. When they go on to college students who choose to take biology classes are going to be expected to know about evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is foundational to our modern understanding of biology.

Just doing my part to kick "American Idol" out of the smoky backroom.

<< According to your asinine version of "teach the controversy," flat earth theory would be taught in class alongside geosphericism (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), geocentrism would be taught alongside heliocentrism (as these are the two front-running scientific theories),>>

While I have never run into any gen-yoo-wine flat-earthers, I have run into several geocentrists among creationists. I kid you not. I think there is a significant minority of those who really "get into" creationism that end up there.

There is no denying the fact that the Bible repeatedly claims that the Earth does not move. Both Luther and Calvin used those passages to dismiss Copernicus as a kook.

Most modern creationists go into contortions in their attempts to explain away these biblical statements, but some of them just go all the way and embrace them. Seems to me to be completely inconsistent for them not to do so, since they are so intent on reading the first chapters of Genesis as literal scientific truth.

What I have found is that they find literal truth where they want it to be literal, and they find symbolism and non-literal stuff where they need it to be non-literal. The basis for the choices seems to be entirely arbitrary. The Bible is like a wax-nose in their hands.