[Qwinn]

"Evolution should be taught in school because it is backed by science. Religion should not enter into it. Saying that you shouldn't teach evolution in school because your religion says differently is like saying that Shakespeare shouldn't be read in school because you disagree with his plot lines."

What a straw man. I don't see anyone claiming evolution shouldn't be taught. What they're saying is that -both- should be taught, that neither is "invalid". As an agnostic, I have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, I consider it the quintessential agnostic position.

And that's what government should be. Not a theocracy. Not atheist. It should be agnostic. It's answer to the question should be "We don't know, but here's the most widely accepted theories." It should not dismiss -either- possibility.

Way back when, only intelligent design could be taught, not evolution. That was intolerant and biased. Now only evolution can be taught, not intelligent design. That is every last bit as intolerant and biased.

Qwinn

[Faith]

Big Buckeye Bump!

[Rudder]

Intelligent design is only an idea and one not at all based in science. Why then should it be included in a science curricula? So we can excercise more tolerance? According to your thinking every idea should belong in the science curricula. I'm glad you're not training to become a scientist, because you'd be very busy learning about the universe of all possible ideas.

[greenwolf]

"Saying that you shouldn't teach evolution in school because your religion says differently is like saying that Shakespeare shouldn't be read in school because you disagree with his plot lines."

What people are saying, is that evolution shouldn't be taught because it's junk science.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There are no "theories" just evolutionary theory. Perhaps the science teaches will use this proposal to point out why ID-Creationism-NewAgeism-Kokopellism-Etc. are not science.

[Dimensio]

What they're saying is that -both- should be taught, that neither is "invalid".

Both? Let's see...there's evolution theory...what's the other theory?

[VadeRetro]

What a straw man. I don't see anyone claiming evolution shouldn't be taught. What they're saying is that -both- should be taught, that neither is "invalid". As an agnostic, I have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, I consider it the quintessential agnostic position.

It's about what science knows. Evolution is controversial outside of science, not within. The objections to it are not about science.

For instance, science has moved past the question of whether fire is the result of oxidation or the rushing out of a substance called phlogiston. It's oxidation, period. There are things we don't know, but that's not one of them. It would be criminal to misrepresent that ancient question as being a current controversy.

The people who want to lie to the kids in Ohio are not promoting education.