Replies

Suppose you were teaching a class of retarded second graders, and one said, "If it's really gravity that makes things fall, how come a feather falls slower than a bowling ball? A-hyuk, A-hyuk, boy, I got him now."

I don't quite see how this is even remotely analagous. There are multiple variants of what "God" is, and there are a number of religions that don't refer to their deity as "God" or have multiple deities or none at all.

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

Equal time for what? Why does non-science deserve equal time in a science classroom? Does non-math deserve equal time in a math classroom? Should we give a mention of French, Spanish and every other foreign language in an English class? Why not save those subjects for an appropriate classroom?

Moreover, you're misrepresenting the objection. No one has proposed simply mentioning that there are people who believe in a "God" and that such people are sane. There's no reason for that: no one is currently teaching in schools that God-belief is somehow irrational. In fact, there's no point because the majority of the US population -- and this would proportionally include schoolchildren -- are already theists. People are proposing mentioning that there are those who don't believe that evolution is valid science, and unless you believe that accepting evolution is synonymous with atheism (and I've made it clear exactly what I think of people who make that false equivocation) those are two different statements. Do we take time out for every scientific theory to make note of the fact that there are cranks with their own "alternative" explanation that doesn't rise to the level of science? And why did you bring God into it when God was never the subject of the objection?

"I don't quite see how this is even remotely analagous."

I know, and that's sad, but the fact is that it's very closely analogous.

"Moreover, you're misrepresenting the objection."

No, I just cut to the heart of it.

"no one is currently teaching in schools that God-belief is somehow irrational."

If I were gullible enough to believe that, I'd probably be a liberal.

"People are proposing mentioning that there are those who don't believe that evolution is valid science"

However, ID proponents are not among them. The way ID proponents are demonized on these threads is by declaring them nothing more than crevos in disguise.

"and unless you believe that accepting evolution is synonymous with atheism (and I've made it clear exactly what I think of people who make that false equivocation) those are two different statements."

No, that's not right either. I don't reject the fossil record, while I do believe in God. It's entirely plausible to me that He might have used evolution to get where He was going.

The crux of the matter is that many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God, and they don't want any interference.

"Do we take time out for every scientific theory to make note of the fact that there are cranks with their own "alternative" explanation that doesn't rise to the level of science?"

So, people who believe in God are cranks, are we? That attitude is exactly the reason that time is needed to advocate the contrary position.

"And why did you bring God into it when God was never the subject of the objection?"

Sure He is. You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but the fact is that many "scientists" are driven to paroxyms of hysteria by the thought that someone might just poke his head into a classroom and say, "And we think God was behind it all."