A chance to be a pro-science activist!

Why would "teaching all sides of an issue" preclude accepting books on mainstream science, regardless of the motive for donating them ?Why would there need to be a review before accepting these particular books for a school library when it is not a normal procedure for such donations ?

Well apparently there was no need for any such review of the donation of Pandas and People on the grounds that no money was being spent acquiring the books. So I think that it IS odd that the school board are apparently more reluctant to accept books that are simply intended for the library.And I don't see that the motive is any worse than the motive for distributing Pandas and People either.Nor is there anything "tricky" about my reference to mainstream science. It is what schools SHOULD teach. They shouldn't spend time on way-out speculations that have yet to prove themselves like ID. Even the ID movement admit that they have nothing ready to teach and currently restrict themselves to attempting to censor some of the evidence for evolution.Well maybe you are so opposed to education or science that you see them as evil - I mean you do equate them with Judas betraying Jesus to death, nor do you see anything wrong in a school board acting against the interests of education in science.

Well there is an obvious reason for discussing the shortcomings of ID -and that is to reveal the truth to people like you who have been deceived by the ID propaganda machine.As for my facts the article you quote does not mention any review of the other donation. So it confirms my point.And I must really ask why you accuse me of bias when all I am doing is telling the truth. Maybe you think that preferring truth to falsehood is mere bias ?ID is a way-out speculative view that has got nowhere scientifically. That is a fact - and it deals only with ID as science. Qute frankly if you object to such an assertion - which does not even touch on the really controversial aspects of ID - then I really have to say that you are in the grip of overwhelming bias.

Well it seems that you have a problem with rational argument.It is impossible to prove that something is not mentioned without quoting the entire article. Since that would be both a copyright violation and an abuse of this board I did not do so. If you wish to claim that the donation of was specifically reviewed based on the article it is up to you to produce the quotes - because that IS possible without violating copyright or abusing the board. But you did not.2) I do not need to argue that the transcript is misquoted - it could, for instance be incorrect.3) The fact that there was no mention of a review refutes your claim that the article states that there was such a review.So here is a question - was Pandas and People reviewed for scientific accuracy ? By qualified people ?
York Daily Record And please understand that if you don't like something that doesn't make it true. No matter how much you object to the fact ID as science is just a way-out speculation that hasn't got anywhere it remains a fact. IF you want to argue otherwise then produce the evidence to the contrary - don't just complain that you hate what people are saying.