[Dataman]

Hey Atlaw

From the article. it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.

Just out of curiosity, what would the curriculum in a Creation Science class consist of?

If you haven't got a clue, you are ignorant of the opposition's position. Subject-changing questions are a poor substitute for homework.

[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.

[Ichneumon]

[Just out of curiosity, what would the curriculum in a Creation Science class consist of?]

If you haven't got a clue, you are ignorant of the opposition's position.

I guess you don't know eiter then, or else surely you would have answered the question. Feel free to take a stab at it -- note that the word "science" is included in the question, so tailor your answer appropriately.

Subject-changing questions are a poor substitute for homework.

...so says the guy who repeatedly tried to derail an evolution thread by insisting that everyone answer his "why is there matter" tangent.

In this particular case, however, that question is hardly a change of subject, it's right on target. If creationists are going to whine about the alleged motives of people who don't think they deserve "equal time", they need to demonstrate that they have something worth being presented in science classes -- or else all their accusations about motives is just an attempt to distract attention from the *real* reason, which is that they've got nothing worth serious consideration.