[Jeff Gordon]

Bible school is religious instruction, not academic education, in case you haven't noticed.

Oh, I noticed. I noticed that you do not understand the difference between science and religion. You talk about education in the sciences as if it were a Bible Studies class.

When I took my first science class in the Seventh Grade, I was taught about the scientific method. I learned (among other things) that that which can be verfied by experimentation is science. It is really that simple.

[Twodees]

I understand the difference between science and religion perfectly well, thanks. That's why I say that Darwin's SWAG is a religious idea. With religion, one is asked to accept certain things on faith where no proof is possible. That's precisely what the Darwinists ask out children to do. There is no valid reason for including such a bizzare set of musings in an introduction to science in public school.

Why can't it be dropped and replaced with nothing? The origins of the Earth and the inhabitants of earth have never been proven. Making reference to the musings of scientitsts is well and good as long as their ideas are presented as products of the imaginations of scientists. Since the Darwinists don't want to agree even to that much, the whole bizarre idea should be dropped from public school curricula rather than have it taught as valid theory, which it clearly is not.

What would be your problem with dropping it and replacing it with nothing?