Creationist/ID Education should be allowed

You do realise that story is an intentional parody?

Yes - but when you think about the fact that Ms Bachmann is a member of the Intelligence committee...

And then we have this thing called quantum electrodynamics, which can predict the behavior of electrons to ten decimal places.Or we can listen to "creation scientists" telling us that: "Some scientists think that the sun may be the source of most electricity".

... and in spite of ALL that we can say about what Electricity can do, we can NOT be smart enough yet to explain what Energy actually is, and we remain totally stupid and ignorant saying only that it is "able to do work."We are stuck saying Energy is an ability, an ability to make things move, an ability to do work.

God MUST have "invented" mathematics:Matthew 10:30
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.This also infers that God knows quite well about the genetic code, too.Then we have the Old Testament reporting the number Pi correctly to one decimal place, indirectly by telling us the dimensions by which to construct a round basin before the Temple.Again,the Sacred Language, Hebrew, uses 22 symbols to represent the Natural Numbers:

Those things are not 'electricity'. The field is an electric field, yes, but the field is not 'electricity'. An electric field is present whenever a charge, moving or stationary is present, but that field is not electricity either.Electricity is a name we give to a set of phenomena associated with electric charges. And we know those phenomena in every detail imaginable.Further, we know exactly what an electric field is as well. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The writer was incorrect. He did not say that we did not know what energy was. Some how you decided to change the subject from electricity to energy.But what are the seven forms of Energy? That ought to be good for a laugh.

Wow - that is a definite proof of the existence of a deity. A decimal numeral system is also such proof - why else would we have ten fingers?
Just like a banana is designed to fit into human hand and to have a "zipper" to open easily - what could be a more clear sign of design. A pineapple or a coconut perhaps...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfucpGCm5hY

If God created the genetic code, then He would know about it, yes. No surprises there. But that says nothing about the authors of the Bible understanding the genetic code. Pi to one significant figure is, at best, a very rough approximation. I use it myself sometimes. Sure, some sheep herder may have figured it out. Sure, it may be worth teaching to children. But it's just ludicrous to call it "science in the Bible".

It is nothing short of amazing how stupid some lawmakers can be. Now a law has been introduced stating that kids can just throw wild unsubstantiated claims without teachers being able to flunk them.Insist That People Coexisted With Dinosaursand Get an A in Science Class! – Mother Jones

I can't see how this isn't about religion.I remember when I was taking a class on human evolution in college. The professor made an announcement on the first day explaining how she knew some people felt the topic was controversial and that they might not believe that humans evolved. She said that they didn't expect you to believe it, but they did expect you to be able to explain the scientific position on human evolution.Just because you don't want to accept the scientific explanation doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to learn what that explanation is. These laws don't help with anything at all.

No, it shouldnt be allowed.

I have never understood how grown-ups claim that it is agood thing for a kid to "think critically". What is the role of a qualified teacher if the word of a preacher has the same weight in science class.
The creationists are in general dishonest, intellectually lazy dimwits whom I totally loath.

That is exactly what the Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (1990) stated on page 206 in the Anti-Dogmatism Statement:

quote:

---

State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, adopted 13 Jan 1989 [emphasized in original]:

quote:

---

Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

---

---

Later, the Framework makes this statement:

quote:

---

We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.

---

In stark contrast, when "creation science" with its "balanced treatment" approach has been used, it instead does try to compel belief. After having misinformed the student, it repeatedly urges the student to choose, based on that misinformation, between the Creator and "godless evolution". Not only is that inconsistent with the goals of education, but it also works against those goals. All that "balanced treatment" is trying to do is to proselytize. Furthermore, the principal tools in that proselytizing is the use of false claims and deception. And one of the effects of "balanced treatment" has been to turn some of those students into atheists (eg, Ray Baird's elementary grade classes, Livermore, CA, 1981).

Sadly, those lawmakers represent the people who voted them into office. Idiocracy in action.Edited by dwise1, : 2nd sentence