Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

There has certainly been an increase recently. It's a bit early to decide if this is a trend or just part of the normal ups and downs.I haven't noticed a similar change at the usenet talk.origins group.

Perhaps a bit unfair. The majority of people who consider themselves ID proponents are likely either deists or theistic evolutionists, and they do not spend any time attacking evolution, nor do they try to inject their ID views into the classroom.

Your earlier post was a response to GDR. There must be many like him who believe that there was an intelligent designer, but who do not attack evolution. Come now. There were people who believed in an intelligent designer, long before Philip Johnson was born.Sure, ID as a right wing political movement is new and dishonest. But when most people hear the term "ID" they think of it as belief that there was an intelligent designer. Such a belief, if not connected to the political movement, is innocuous. Those in the political movement were cunning when they chose the term "ID". Let's avoid falling into the trap they have set for us, by clearly distinguishing who we mean and not giving a blanket condemnation to all who would believe in an intelligent designer.

A philosophy class in high school is almost certainly an elective. Moreover, it is an elective that very few students will elect to take. Thus it is certain to be dropped.The only purpose in offering such a class is to impress some grandstanding politicians.

They make a flimsy case based on rhetoric, the use of tactical vagueness (a refusal to define their terms), and misrepresentation.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I agree with that. But there, I disagree.Sure, the creationist teacher can state that he/she is a creationist, and doesn't personally accept ToE. But he cannot actively teach that evolution is wrong. There is a curriculum, and the teacher is expected to teach that curriculum. If his own beliefs prevent him/her from teaching the curriculum, he should insist that he not be assigned to teach the class that deals with evolution.Note: the "can" and "cannot" above are not comments on legality (which would mostly be case law). Rather, they are comments on what I would consider ethical for a teacher.

I disagree.Computers are far better than we of passing along information. Yet they appear unable to learn.Maybe try some of the writings of Piaget.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber