On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:38:27 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:16:01 -0400, H the K wrote:


Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented"
in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science?

Bull****.

IMO, it shouldn't. From my perspective, it's just another way of getting
the camel's nose under the tent. Most all religions have a creation
"theory", but that's not what we are discussing here. We're talking
about Christian creation "theory", and that, IMO, would be against the
First Amendment's prohibition on "establishment of religion". If you
were to give equal weight to all Creation "theories", it might pass
muster in some class, but not a science class.

No one, but Harry, has suggested presenting anything as an
'alternative' to science. Apparently *you* are restricting the
argument to 'Christian creation theory'. I've not done so. In fact,
I've used the term 'Higher Power' to allow for any religious belief,
alien belief, or Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

The origins of man have not been proven. Until they are done so, there
is no harm in presenting what several billion (see, I fixed it)
believe, even if presented only as a belief without proof.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.