>>In the booklet, teachers are instructed to use such discussion questions as: “Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?” The answer to that query is provided as: “Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false.”
“This statement is simplistic and not neutral among different religions, and in that sense arguably inconsistent with Supreme Court teachings concerning neutrality,” said attorney Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at the institute.<<
This is absurd. These people are absurd.
The people making these attacks on science are the people who spend their lives trying to force schools to teach religion.
For them to come back and say that teachers are not allowed to even say they don’t oppose religion and that science doesn’t oppose religion is highly hypocritical.
The people making these attacks on science are the people who spend their lives trying to force schools to teach religion.
For them to come back and say that teachers are not allowed to even say they don’t oppose religion and that science doesn’t oppose religion is highly hypocritical.
The lawyers and PR flacks at the Dyscovery Institute are getting hysterical over this NOVA show. I think they are afraid that what once was a dry court transcript is now being made into a memorable visual event -- and the trial showed how truly disingenuous the Dyscovery Institute's support for ID really was.
Here are some of the highlights of the Dyscovery Institute's role in the Dover affair (from the Court's decision).
I don't agree with that proposition but then again I don't agree with SCOTUS either since their "establishment clause" jurisprudence is bascially incoherent.
Well, yes they're absurd (didn't they refuse to help defend ID in the Dover trial?) but in that particular sentence they have the teensy-weensiest of claims. There are religious people who think evolution can be reconciled with religions and other religious people who disagree. That statement is siding with the former against the latter and so might conceivably put a toe across the SC's neutrality standard.
Better to stick with facts that don't claim truth for one position or another. They might, for example, quote some of the many scientists like Francis Collins who've reconciled evolution with their faith. And then they could quote creationists who say these celebrated scientists just lying to themselves because the Bible must be taken literally.