<<The ACLU fought against Biblical Creationism. Jim Bell suggested
that it therefore also excluded "Scientific Creationism". I would
suspect that the ACLU would not be against "Scientific Creationism"
if such a scientific theory existed in a reasonably coherent form.>>
Just to be clear, I was responding to Burgy's suggestion to Chuck that
"Creationism" was not the same as "Biblical Creationism" -- and therefore
Chuck's post was somehow not "logical." I asked for some evidence, any
references to show that the ACLU makes any distinction between Creationism,
Biblical Creationism, Scientific Creationism, or Creation Science. None have
been forthcoming, because in fact the ACLU does not make those distinctions.
I suspect the ACLU would never countenance anything suggesting non-natural
causes to be allowed in a public classroom. It doesn't matter what it's
called. It is fighting to keep "Of Pandas and People" out of the public
schools, and all that does is critique Darwinism and offer up a theoretical
alternative. Doesn't mention God, doesn't mention Genesis, has a fine essay on
scientific methodology. But the ACLU is fighting as if William Jennings Bryan
himself rose from the dead, thumped his Bible, and personally walked the book
into public classrooms across the land.
Jim