Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!ark
From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: creation in public shools
Message-ID: <2808@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-May-84 13:24:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2808
Posted: Sun May 20 13:24:18 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 21-May-84 05:21:26 EDT
References: <1114@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 30

Larry Bickford commented on a previus article.  The original is
preceded by >>, Larry's comments by >, and mine by nothing.


>>   If we are to be forced by legislation to teach what is essentially a
>> matter of religious faith in our public schools, why must it be confined to
>> the christian version of creation? Creationists speak of fairness in
>> their arguments for teaching their views of the origin of the world as
>> we know it.  If fairness is the issue, then along with teaching the
>> theory of evolution and the christian myth of creation in our biology
>> classes, we should also tell our children the Hopi version of the
>> emergence, the Buddist and Hindu stories, the Australian Aborigine's
>> stories of what happened during the Dream Time, and the thousands of other
>> tales various peoples have developed to explain their place in the cosmos.

> Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation."
> This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model
> SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented. If you have
> a model ( => useful as a model) supported only by SCIENTIFIC evidence,
> feel free to present it. A book which may be scientifically accurate
> does not qualify as scientific evidence.

Larry, you are making a subtle error.  We are NOT talking about whether
particular material should be presented in the classroom, we are talking
about whether or not teachers should be REQUIRED BY LAW to present that
material.  There is a tremendous difference.

Evidence enough exists to have convinced several courts that "scientific
creationism" is really just an attempt to dress up religion to look
somewhat like science.