> Tom Moore wrote:
>
> >>>If high school students can do it, why can't the critics of science?<<<
>
> And again:
>
> >>>Remember, _high school_ students can do it, why can't these authors?<<<
>
> And again:
>
> >>>High school kids can do it! So, again, why can't you take the time to
> read it?<<<
>
> And yet again (to Jim Bell):
>
> >>>So, I asked Chuck, and I'll ask you. What exactly is your problem? I
> pointed out high school students are can certainly read primary scientific
> literature, so can you and Chuck, or
> even Johnson.<<<
>
> Well, heck, Tom, if you're going to repeat this refrain endlessly, maybe
> I'd better just call you on it .
> If you furnish me with a list of "primary" scientific literature currently
> in use in *high schools*, and which would then give me credibility with
> you, I'll give it a shot. I've done a fair amount of scientific reading;
> gee, I may already be a Priest and just don't realize it...or even a
> Monsignor [ ;-) !!!!!!! ].
As I said, high school students doing science fair projects here in
Tucson were required to include all of their references. They
_researched_ the work. Indeed, not only did they maintain the list, they
included copies of each. The references ranged from articles in medical
journals, geology journals, material science journals, etc. If you want
to fault me for not writing down the references they used, then it's
again your problem. I went to the science fair, I look through the
literature that provided, and some of the projects included 100% primary
literature. I didn't write down any of the sources used because none of
the topics I was particularly interested in researching. But it doesn't
change the fact that it's clear high school students are capable.
If, by the way, you call anyone a "priest" who's read primary literature,
and you claim to have read primary literature, then you certainly are
one. So, go out and publically abuse yourself for being a "priest."
>
> A minor point: the ACLU's stated goal is to *prevent* the teaching of a
> theory with which it disagrees.
I have yet to see anything that any creationist, young-earth or old,
produced that could be called a theory or scientific that isn't already
in science ed. The ACLU is, like me, very much against teaching religion
as science, not only to prevent indoctrination, but also to prevent the
government from going around and falsifying people's religious beliefs.
I am against teaching religion in science, especially, because if
teachers are properly trained, there will be many more atheists in the world.
I'm not interested in forcing religion down a child's throat, nor am I
interested in taking people's religion from them. But, I insist that
science is taught in science classes.
> The goal of the ACLJ (and the Rutherford Institute) is to *permit* two
> competing theories to be presented. Rather an inverted Scopes situation ,
> don't you think?
>
What theories Chuck? Take a creation theory to talk.origins and see if
it stands up as a theory. If you do, you win a prize. They've been
looking for one since I've been reading it. I should point out that I
think the ACLJ have been on the correct side of some subjects, but they
are not in this case. Convince me that there is a scientific theory of
creationism and I'll change my mind.
Tom