[Gritty]

Are you saying that the Iroquois creation story is less valid for teaching in the public schools than the Biblical creation story?

I'm saying your throwing that in is nothing more than a "strawman" argument. I thought I said that in a pretty plain way.

You are the one who inserted the story about the Iroquois turtle myth in an attempt to discredit via absurdity rather than try and refute or even discuss any of cowgirls's comments. Instead, you chose to use a lame aside.

[Ichneumon]

You are the one who inserted the story about the Iroquois turtle myth in an attempt to discredit via absurdity rather than try and refute or even discuss any of cowgirls's comments. Instead, you chose to use a lame aside.

Nothing "lame" or "absurd" about it. He's making the perfectly valid point that there are thousands of religious creation stories out there, and any argument for including one as an "alternative" explanation to evolution can equally be applied to all.

[NC28203]

After reviewing Cowgirl's post again, I will concede your point. I was incorrect to cite the Iroquois creation story since Cowgirl does not specifically call for the teaching of Creationism (though I would wager that is what she would like to have done). But based on her words in the post and without further indication I will assume that she would prefer no version of creation be taught.
I would counter that since we are supposed to be teaching science, we at least go for the theory that has testable hypotheses> Lets leave creation stories out of the picture as there is as much scientific evidence of this continent being formed from the back of a turtle as there is that the Earth was formed in six days about 6,000 years ago.