Ok. Why not. Let's teach ID in Science class!

I promise you, if you told neo-nazis and flat-earthists that they could get these topics taught by calling them science. Boom, they would be science

You are giving teachers and students way too much credit. In the red states, where a high school diploma means you're a scientist, its amazing that these students graduate with a basic understanding of addition.These people are functionally retarded, throwing gas on the fire isn't going to put it out. They'll wake up for the 10 seconds of ID taught in class, then go back to huffing paint thinner and beating their chestsThis message has been edited by Nuggin, 10-26-2005 11:15 AM

So, you would be supportive of the teaching of Hindu creationism in the classroom? Navajo? Zoroasterian? Norse? Greek? Aborigenie?I'm down with that. Let's teach every single Creation story ever along side the Jewish creationism story and let the people look at all the "evidence".

As someone who has a degree in Anthro, let me say that they really don't "need" to mention the book of Genesis when discussing evolution - however here's a likely explaination of why that happened.***ALERT, TALKING POLITICS! THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THREAD! DON'T RESPOND ABOUT THE POLITICS!***Currently we are experiencing a "war on terror". As a result, almost every single speech the President gives, be it about Iraq, Social Security, Guest Worker status, etc, contains a "9/11" or "Al Queda" reference - often many.The "war on terror" is a big part of American politics right now.Scientists are in their own war right now - the "War on Religious Extremists".As a result, it's very hard for a scientist to address an issue which directly relates to the battlefield, without touching on our own "al queda" - "Creationists".The more important question is this: did the class answer your questions on Evolution? If not, would you like those questions answered at all? I'd be happy to help you out.

I wish more people thought like you. The problem lies not in the topic, but in the politics.Evolution can very easily and successfully be taught with absolutely no reference to any religion. And so long as no one raises a religious question, there is frankly no need to go into the subject at all.However, the main thrust of a small but strong political movement is to strike all references to evolution from textbooks, and to teach, not just religious Creationism, but a very very specific form of religious Creationism (to the exclusion of all other religions).For a while scientists have tried to ignore them, figuring that the general population is smart enough to know real science from fanatical zealotry. Unfortunately, it's very easy to over estimate the intelligence of the American public.Ignoring this battlefront only allows it to fester. The fanatical religious extremists want their agenda no matter what. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. As a result, increasingly over the last 50 years or so, scientists have been forced to take a much more proactive stance, trying to prevent the extremists from dismantling the entire education system.

Before I go off on this guy...You weren't actually at Central Conn. State were you? Also, this is key "public perception and understanding of scientific matters". That's why he mentions Creationism so much.Although, I think your original point is still very valid - the professor who was selecting curriculum should either have set up a different outline or picked a book that didn't conflict with the outline he had choosen.Just out of curriosity, when we the book published?

Which raises an interesting pair of questions -How old are you and where did you go to school?

Well, I grew up in Conn. and let me tell you my impression of Central - it's the school kids go to when they can't get into UConn.I only know 1 kid who went to Central. A friend of mine, but not exactly an academic athlete. And this profs been teaching there for 35 years?Yikes

From the other posts I've seen in the thread it sounds like this book was a collection of Essays about Evolution, some directly compairing the plausibility of Evolution and Creationism.I'm not surprised that at this Gould article, in the war against religious extremeism, Gould is (was) our Patton.