[stands2reason]

I told puroresu that I think that schoolboards should select textbooks that clearly state in the introduction what science is and isn't.
And with all the emphasis in the news lately on the boundaries of science and nonscience, any text written from now on that doesn't do that is completely worthless.

I issue a public challenge right here to puroresu to find a scientist or evo that disagrees with my premise.

[PatrickHenry]

I think that schoolboards should select textbooks that clearly state in the introduction what science is and isn't.

One of the most popular high school biology texts, by Kenneth Miller, does exactly that. For each book at this site, click on "teacher site" and then chapter one: Textbooks by Ken Miller & Joe Levine.

[puroresu]

The ball's in your court on this one, my friend! :-)

If you can get the scientific community, not to mention the ACLU and the federal courts, to accept a public school science book that clearly explains, in plain English, that science can neither confirm nor deny God's existence, you'll win my applause.

But Judge Jones may have given us an even simpler proposition. In his ruling, he wrote (in reference to evolution critics):

#####“Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiff’s scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.”#####


So how about quoting the judge verbatim? Prior to learning about evolution, the kids could be told that the theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator". Do you think that would be acceptible? Given the Cobb County sticker case, something tells me that it wouldn't be.