[dsc]

"To which "God", out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer and why."

I shouldn't. I really shouldn't. But I really want to, so I will.

Suppose you were teaching a class of retarded second graders, and one said, "If it's really gravity that makes things fall, how come a feather falls slower than a bowling ball? A-hyuk, A-hyuk, boy, I got him now."

Well, I reacted to your question just about the same way most curmudgeons would react in the circumstance above. Your question would have to be significantly better just to rise to the level of "wrong."

It's as misguided as assuming, because a mountain looks different in various weather conditions and from different angles and distances, that one must be looking at many different mountains.

It shows that you know and understand even less about that subject than your despised "crevos" know about science.

"Also, why do you think that this statement has any relevance in a science classroom?"

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

[Dimensio]

Suppose you were teaching a class of retarded second graders, and one said, "If it's really gravity that makes things fall, how come a feather falls slower than a bowling ball? A-hyuk, A-hyuk, boy, I got him now."

I don't quite see how this is even remotely analagous. There are multiple variants of what "God" is, and there are a number of religions that don't refer to their deity as "God" or have multiple deities or none at all.

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

Equal time for what? Why does non-science deserve equal time in a science classroom? Does non-math deserve equal time in a math classroom? Should we give a mention of French, Spanish and every other foreign language in an English class? Why not save those subjects for an appropriate classroom?

Moreover, you're misrepresenting the objection. No one has proposed simply mentioning that there are people who believe in a "God" and that such people are sane. There's no reason for that: no one is currently teaching in schools that God-belief is somehow irrational. In fact, there's no point because the majority of the US population -- and this would proportionally include schoolchildren -- are already theists. People are proposing mentioning that there are those who don't believe that evolution is valid science, and unless you believe that accepting evolution is synonymous with atheism (and I've made it clear exactly what I think of people who make that false equivocation) those are two different statements. Do we take time out for every scientific theory to make note of the fact that there are cranks with their own "alternative" explanation that doesn't rise to the level of science? And why did you bring God into it when God was never the subject of the objection?

[RunningWolf]

because a mountain looks different in various weather conditions and from different angles and distances, that one must be looking at many different mountains.

Thats an apt analogy.

Also have you noticed the backwards inference that goes on here from these demented sorts?

It is much more important than what the evolutionists here say, rather than than what 'the theory of evolution says'. Now most of them slither away from what 'they say', like the demented methods back handed inference to what the 'theory says'. The ones that don't, I respect their integrity about their beliefs at least.

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

Thats what they are so afraid of. That one minute in a whole year will devastate the foundation of the cultish ideology.

Wolf