Quote:
Originally posted by: IrishEyes
Please take the time to browse the article, then tell us what you think.
|
The article provides no background for the decision, but nevertheless it is a tragedy.
When the argument is that it is necessary to teach more than one "scientific" theory then they are completely out of their league. This is a classic example of creationists and ID-followers to use "scientific methods" to claim that they teach "science" when what they have is a doctrine based on a religious opinion.
Evolution _is_ science. Evolution may be discussed, investigated, tried, and tested.
Creationism can only be assumed and argued about. All attempts that I have seen so far to argue for creationism either start by claiming that Darwin was wrong (and thus showing they know nothing about evolution) or by claiming (as the article does) that life is too complex to have developed without a creator. The first is simply ignorant, the second is usually more philosophical, but they always end up bashing evolution.
Anyway, that's what I think.
