2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

There are a lot of questions to be raised.Why should we misinform children and hurt their education ? DO the people polled even realise that this is what they are asking for ?What "factual" arguments belong in school classes and why ? Schools are for teaching the basic underpinnings of a subject, not for discussing every fringe idea.If creationism and ID are so short of money why do they have so much to spend on PR activities ?Why say that "by law, evolution is the only theory taught" when you know that there is no law mandating that evolution alone should be taught. Evolution succeeded on its scientific merits and it is currently the only theory that DESERVES to be taught. If ID and creationism have scientific merit why are they trying to use political means to circumvent the scientific process ?And why not consider the possibility that Creationism and ID are the foreces they are in the US because of the PR and propaganda campaing of crewationist organisations and churches ? In other societies where the same information and education is available creationism and ID have far less of a hold.This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-31-2005 02:26 AM

Pretending that ID or creationism offered a serious scientific challenge to evolution would be misinforming the children.As I say, science education is for dealing with the basics, not for promoting fringe ideas that happen to be popular with the general public.

quote:

---

I think evos ought to consider that just maybe the reason so many think creationism has some validity is not due to ignorance, blind faith, etc

---

On reading the article and seeing: and I have to ask why we should not consider it likely that ignorance and blind faith did not play a major role in the results.

The Miocene humans thread starts here:http://EvC Forum: Miocene humans -->EvC Forum: Miocene humansApparently randman feels that a Hindu fundamentalist relying on the selective use of highly unreliable data to support his religious beliefs should be considered a reliable source.Meanwhile any site that puts forward a pro-evolution view should be automatically dismissed as "biased".

Randman's been suspended from the science forums, so he won't be replying to the Miocene Humans thread for a while.

And this demonstrates why you are suspended from the science forums.Instead of supporting your assertion you demand that it is simply believed. And in a rather insulting way, suggesting that the mere idea that your opinions could be incorrect is equivalent to suggesting that the sky is orange.You didn't even bother to find out if the paper written with Snokes had been published (it was - and the current issue of Protein Science contains another paper rebutting it).