Bill Wald wrote:
BW>The point being that the typical kid doesn't have the need or
BW>the ability to understand anything about abiogenesis or any
BW>other kind of genesis. The entire argument is rediculous
BW>until high school graduates can again read and write.
I don't think it at all ridiculous to reserve the science
classroom for science. While not all high school graduates
can read and write, some of them do. Why agree to teach
non-science in science classrooms simply because other parts
of the curriculum have other problems?
Was anyone else bothered by the non-analogous analogy in the
WSJ piece? Scopes was debarred by the Butler Act from teaching
a scientific concept in a science class. Various ID proponents
complain that something that is not clearly science is not
taught in science classes. These don't look at all analogous to
me.
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 00:10:24 EDT