David Fitch writes:
quote:
As long as creation is allowed to produce at least some testable hypotheses
But it doesn't. We have allowed it all the time in the world to come up with a single one and it has failed in every case.
Tell you what...how's this for a method:
The curriculum will be based upon the state of the peer reviewed literature. If 10% of the literature indicates a creationist perspective, then we will devote 10% of the time to creationist material, focusing on the aspects discussed in the literature.
Or are you going to say that there is a bias in the literature against creationism since there are absolutely no articles in the literature that support creationism?
quote:
By advocating "balanced" presentation, I am NOT advocating "equal time". It would be silly to spend equal time on flat-earth hypotheses as on round-earth ones. But students are crying out for "some time" to be spent on creation
Then you're arguing for "equal time."
Since when does the person who has no knowledge or experience on a subject get to be the arbiter of what should be taught?
Should we allow students who want two and two to equal five a chance to waste time in presenting their views? Or do we simply sit them down and firmly and consistently show them how and why they are wrong?
People are entitled to their opinion, yes, but that right does not mean their opinions mean anything.
quote:
as long as we stick to creationist hypotheses that are testable.
But there aren't any.
Could you please give us an example of one? How does one put god in the box?
quote:
These are only a few arguments for balanced curricula.
But the curricula is already balanced. You're seeking to add things without any merit into the coursework.
You admit that spending time on a flat earth is a waste of time, but you seem to think that spending time on creationism is necessary? Simply because you merely
think that there is some desire for it?
Why do you think that spending time discussing a flat earth is not useful? Could it be because there is so much evidence pointing against it that it is ridiculous to seriously consider it? Not that it can't be true in some existential sense but simply that there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence against it that it would be foolish to waste time on it?
Well, the same scenario exists with regard to creationism. There is so much evidence pointing against it that it is ridiculous to seriously consider it. Not that it can't be true in some existential sense but simply that there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence against it that it would be foolish to waste time on it.
You can't even provide a single experiment to test for it and, in fact, the dogma requires that there be none. "Thou shall not test the lord thy god."
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2