Hi Jonathan,
Yes I agree. I am wondering why there even has to be a bill.
It seems like this shouldn't be a problem for any scientific theory.
Like I said the only thing I see as a problem is what constitutes
as evidence. I am wondering if this bill is somehow trying to
sneak in creationism.
Giving consistent and inconsistent evidence of any scientific
theory should already be allowable, so again I don't know what this
bill is about.
Erin
>Hi Erin and all,
><<<Mr. Hood's bill (HB 679) is only a paragraph long but would require
>teachers to use evidence both "supporting or consistent" with the theory of
>evolution, as well as evidence "not supporting or inconsistent."
>
>I think this is reasonable as long as evidence is
>really evidence. I would have a problem if creationists
>pulled out Bible quotes as evidence.. . .>>>
>
>Mr. Hood's requirement is reasonable (even desirable) if applied to ALL
>scientific theories. However, when applied selectively to the teaching of
>evolution but not to other scientific theories like atomic theory,
>relativity or thermodynamics, it stinks of hypocricy. It belongs to 17th
>century Italy, not 21st century America.
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:24 BST