Replies

At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.

Nice to see that no matter how long this story lingers, reporters never tire of treating arguments as equivalent when they do not have equivalent weight.

There is no need for "an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be." Evolution does not purport to explain how the universe came to be. It's like looking for an alternative to chemistry to explain the Pythagorean theorem.

He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.

For the record, I would also oppose the Declaration of Independence, the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades being used as an authority in science classes.

==========

This will be based on arguments FOR and AGAINST Darwinism.

Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence.

The existence of conflicting theories does not make the theories equally worthy of consideration. Or would you have high school history classes give equal time to the competing theory that the Holocaust did not happen?

>>At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.

-----------------
Nice to see that no matter how long this story lingers, reporters never tire of treating arguments as equivalent when they do not have equivalent weight. <<
---------------------------------------------

Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

No because Newton's and Copernicus' evidence are OBSERVABLE. RM+NS producing life as we know it ARE *NOT* observable. And oh BTW, Newton and Copernicus were Christians.

The existence of conflicting theories does not make the theories equally worthy of consideration. Or would you have high school history classes give equal time to the competing theory that the Holocaust did not happen?

This is also a dead giveaway. You are equating belief in INTELLIGENT DESIGN with Holocaust Denial. Two absolutely different things. The former has good basis for belief, the other does not. This sounds very much like Dawkins calling people who teach their children that God made the universe "CHILD ABUSERS".