[helpontheway]

I would argue that nowhere here is subhumanity mentioned, or necessarily even inferred. But come on, the Bible as literal truth in a science textbook?

[Abcdefg]

Probably more accurate than those textbooks!

[redbaiter]

When someone says rednecks in Texas they don't mean 'charming, freshly scrubbed people, pillars on the community, models of virtue, with whom I have substantive differences on important matters of principle touching on our shared values.' They mean sub-human. IMHO.

And if you read my post again you'll see I'm not supporting creationism. If Bennetta had limited his objection to the notion of creationism being taught as science, and pointed out that it flies in the face of the evidence, he would be right on. But instead of sticking with the facts, which are on his side, he made a mean and gratuitous remark about religious folk in the south.

[Texas_Jarhead]

give me a break... so you see nothing slanderous or malicious in this phrase, "To please rednecks in Texas..."? If not then you probably agree and are just as much an ass as Mr. Bennetta.

You also blathered, "But come on, the Bible as literal truth in a science textbook?"

Where does it state that the Bible is taught or even included as literal truth? WHERE? No where that's where!

Perhaps you need to read this part again, "Lone Star State creationists complained that the references conflicted with biblical time lines. So the publishers dropped the phrase "millions of years ago" and substituted language like "in the distant past" and "over time."

In your mind changing "millions of years" to "in the distant past" is quoting the Bible as literal truth? Come on.