Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • But even I do not think that "creationism" or "intelligent design" should be taught in science class.

    I do think that they need to present "darwinism" in its true light and not as "gospel" this is how it happened. Because there currently is very minute support ($fossil->none or $otherwise->little) for evolution.

    • I agree with you. I do not think we should present darwinism as the gospel of how it happened. I think we should present it in a way which allows for other thought on the issue (although using the evidence which is available, not creationism of intelligent design). I have the feeling we may or may not find something which will seriously change our feelings on how we've gotten here, but it will include the evidence which is already available. Just a different way of looking at the whole thing.
  • Everytime someone talks about pushing creationism in schools, I have just one response for them.

    If they want to teach creationism/intelegent design in schools so our childrens education is 'well rounded', then they should be all for teaching darwinism/evolution in sunday school right? It IS after all for the 'well rounded' ness of our childrens development ISN'T IT? :-)
    • And while I'm stirring the pot, I find it amazing that these groups want to shoehorn creationism into 'science', yet they are against shoehorning same sex marriage into 'marriage'. If they want to label them 'unions' instead of marriage as to not pollute the weaken the sanctity of marriage, then we should also force creationism in school into something completely different than 'science' for the very same reasons.